1. Successfully Crafting Research Grant Applications: peer review Professor Stephen Wilkinson Research Institute for Social Sciences Keele University

2. Overview Writing for peer reviewers Writing for peer reviewers Pre-submission review: informal &/or internal Pre-submission review: informal &/or internal ‘Right to Reply’ / ‘PI Response’ ‘Right to Reply’ / ‘PI Response’ Questions and Comments Questions and Comments

3. Disciplinary Differences Some points more generalisable than others Some points more generalisable than others AHRC, Wellcome Trust (Biomedical Ethics & Medical Humanities), some ESRC, various internally AHRC, Wellcome Trust (Biomedical Ethics & Medical Humanities), some ESRC, various internally

4. Who are the your reviewers? Find out what you can about them Find out what you can about them May not be specialists in your sub-field May not be specialists in your sub-field Busy and short of time Busy and short of time Faults stand out more than virtues, especially to sceptical readers Faults stand out more than virtues, especially to sceptical readers

5. Writing for Peer Reviewers 1 Make the content: (a) (in part) accessible to non-specialists, (b) clearly laid out, (c) plain language at least for summaries Make the content: (a) (in part) accessible to non-specialists, (b) clearly laid out, (c) plain language at least for summaries “Easy writing makes hard reading” “Easy writing makes hard reading” Sometimes “less is more” Sometimes “less is more” The importance of x may be obvious to people working on x but not to anyone else – so spell it out The importance of x may be obvious to people working on x but not to anyone else – so spell it out

6. Writing for Peer Reviewers 2 Answer the question, follow the instructions (e.g. on forms). Answer the question, follow the instructions (e.g. on forms). For example, make sure that your research questions are research questions and that lay summaries are lay summaries For example, make sure that your research questions are research questions and that lay summaries are lay summaries

7. Writing for Peer Reviewers 3 Remain focussed, minimise loose ends and things that could antagonise (e.g. spelling mistakes, excessive repetition, inconsistency) Remain focussed, minimise loose ends and things that could antagonise (e.g. spelling mistakes, excessive repetition, inconsistency) Remember that your aim is to answer a set of questions not (e.g.) to write a book Remember that your aim is to answer a set of questions not (e.g.) to write a book Give specific examples of and evidence for your own excellence rather than baldly asserting it Give specific examples of and evidence for your own excellence rather than baldly asserting it

8. Pre-submission review Internal peer review (formal, informal) &/or trusted contacts outside Keele Internal peer review (formal, informal) &/or trusted contacts outside Keele Vitally important for improving quality and hence your chances of success Vitally important for improving quality and hence your chances of success Encourage people to be critical Encourage people to be critical Easier to take advantage of for schemes with no deadline (or multiple deadlines) Easier to take advantage of for schemes with no deadline (or multiple deadlines)

9. Right to Reply / PI Response 1 Allow yourself a ‘cooling off’ period Allow yourself a ‘cooling off’ period Produce a list of criticisms, consolidate similar points from different reviewers Produce a list of criticisms, consolidate similar points from different reviewers Respond to each in turn, in order of importance (refer to specific points in the reviews) Respond to each in turn, in order of importance (refer to specific points in the reviews)

10. Right to Reply / PI Response 2 If up against a word limit don’t be afraid to ignore minor criticisms that aren’t ‘deal breakers’ If up against a word limit don’t be afraid to ignore minor criticisms that aren’t ‘deal breakers’ “Less is more” again – make sure it’s readable “Less is more” again – make sure it’s readable Don’t waste time restating virtues and be cautious about playing one reviewer off against another (although a bit of this is OK). Don’t waste time restating virtues and be cautious about playing one reviewer off against another (although a bit of this is OK).

11. Right to Reply / PI Response 3 Keep the tone calm and matter of fact; sounding outraged may reduce your credibility and annoy (or amuse!) panellists Keep the tone calm and matter of fact; sounding outraged may reduce your credibility and annoy (or amuse!) panellists Be cautious about direct attacks on reviewers (“C obviously knows nothing about X”) Be cautious about direct attacks on reviewers (“C obviously knows nothing about X”) More subtle attacks may work: e.g. suggesting that someone has overlooked part of the application, or of the relevant literature More subtle attacks may work: e.g. suggesting that someone has overlooked part of the application, or of the relevant literature

12. Any Questions or Comments?