How to Write a Grant Application
January 2011, Wiley-Blackwell
The author, a reviewer for grant funding organisations and internationally respected research scientist, gives you the benefit of his experience from both sides of the process in this easy-to-use, readable guide. The book takes you through the grant application process, explaining how to:
- Present the justification for the proposed project
- Describe the study design clearly
- Estimate the financial costs
- Understand a typical review process, and how this can influence the contents of the grant application
The author provides practical advice on a range of project types (observational studies, clinical trials, laboratory experiments, and systematic reviews) to increase the chance that your application will be successful. There are also tips on what to avoid throughout the application.
With generic information about application requirements, How to Write a Grant Application is ideal for healthcare professionals seeking a health services or scientific grant.
About the author.
Chapter 1: Overview.
1.1 Types of grants.
1.2 Types of funding organisations.
1.3 Choosing an appropriate funding body.
1.4 Contents of the grant application.
1.5 Including several studies in one application (project grants).
1.6 Translational research sub-studies.
1.7 The application process.
1.8 Estimating timelines and a planned work schedule.
1.9 Intellectual property.
1.10 Text, grammar and format.
Chapter 2: People involved in the study.
2.1 Who should be part of the Study Team?
2.2 Other investigators, collaborators and consultants.
2.3 The host institution and Sponsor.
2.4 Commercial companies.
2.5 Oversight committees.
Chapter 3: Justifi cation for the study.
3.1 Finding background information.
3.2 Previous evidence and similar research (why the study is needed now).
3.3 Biological plausibility.
3.4 Safety of new interventions in clinical trials.
3.6 What will the study contribute?
3.7 Summary of the justifi cation for a proposed study.
Chapter 4: Describing the study design.
4.3 Study objectives and outcome measures.
4.4 Types of studies.
4.5 Observational studies in humans.
4.6 Clinical trials in humans.
4.7 Laboratory experiments.
4.8 Describing sample size.
4.9 Describing the main statistical analyses.
4.10 Systematic reviews.
Chapter 5: Associated documents with the grant application.
5.1 Study protocol.
5.2 Participant Information Sheet.
5.3 Curricula vitae of the Chief Investigator and all co-applicants.
5.4 Letters of support from co-applicants, centre investigators, collaborators, or other advisors.
5.5 Letters of support from commercial companies.
5.6 Other documents specifi c to the fi eld of research.
Chapter 6: Financial costs.
6.1 Overview of items to include in the fi nancial costs.
6.2 Indirect costs or overheads (full economic costs).
6.3 Per patient (or per subject) payments.
6.4 Staff costs.
6.5 Access to core funds and resources.
6.6 Consideration of costs not to be met by the funding body.
6.7 Grant applications associated with calls for proposals.
6.8 Observational studies in humans.
6.9 Clinical trials in humans.
6.10 Laboratory experiments.
6.11 Systematic reviews.
Chapter 7: Funding body review process.
7.1 Submitting the application.
7.2 Processing the application within the funding body.
7.3 Initial reviews (external reviewers).
7.4 Funding committee meeting.
7.5 Funding committee evaluation.
7.6 Feedback to applicants after the meeting.
7.7 Responding to the funding committee feedback.
Chapter 8: Annual reports and applying for a grant extension.
8.1 Annual reports.
8.2 Applying for a grant extension.
Outsell Insights forJune 23, 2010
Analysis of events, data, and trends
affecting the information industry
Elsevier Invests in Science Analytics, Acquires Collexis' Semantic Assets
by David Bousfield, Vice President & Lead Analyst - United Kingdom
* The combination of Elsevier's and Collexis' knowledge discovery
technologies will create a powerful set of applications designed to supportscientific management and assessment.
Important Details: According to a world-wide survey carried out by
Elsevier, researchers now spend up to 30% of their time looking for funding and writing grant proposals, less than 15% of applications are successful, and the average age of first time National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant recipients is 40.
Funders are attaching more and more conditions to their support programs. Some, such as the National Science Foundation, channel a significant proportion of their resources only to young applicants. Others limit the number of submissions, so that competing research institutions mandate pre-screening of applications so that they can coordinate a separate screening process.
Furthermore, to get best value for their money, funders will often require that the principal investigator has assembled a research team which represents the pinnacle of multidisciplinary and international excellence. As science performance, planning and funding management become more directed by evidence-based assessment methods, so a market for scientific performance analytics emerges.