1. ESTABLISHING TIMELINES AND OVERCOMING WRITING OBSTACLES NAOMI L. C. LUBAN, MD

2. Identify the grantor or funding agency Talk to program officer / mentors / others funded by the agency Make sure your idea is unique, not done before and “correct” for the grantor Find and review a recent copy of a successful grant to use as a model (same kind/same agency) Asks questions of the grantee and mentor Getting Started

3. The only thing that stands between the proposal writer and the funding agency is the proposal itself. Key Concept 1

4. Who is the real audience? What do they want to know? What do they NOT want to know? Does the topic fit the mission of the grantor? Considering the Audience May differ for NIH vs. foundation grant

5. A great hypothesis / idea must be  interesting  easy to read / understandable  clearly delineated / focused  “neatly” presented  statistically sound  testable Key Concept 2 Make sure no one has done this before!

6.  The abstract is the first and last thing read by CSR – determines where reviewed Reviewers – determine success vs. failure  Make it the best it can possibly be  Redo after completing the research design  Overview / main points / importance  Redo again after re-reading, editing Key Concept 3

7. 1. Read “background” material - has anyone else done this? 2. Make an outline – headers / subheaders help you organize 3. Write the first draft 4. Revise for substance - add tables / figures 5. Revise for clarity - flow of proposed work - feasibility 6. Seek criticism, critiques - use peers but also - use someone who knows nothing about your work, but a lot about grant writing Six Steps to Follow Once Hypotheses are Developed

8.  Biostatistical assistance  Multiplicity of drafts  Time to prepare budget Requirements from OSP?  Time for critiques Months not weeks  Letters from consultant(s), collaborator(s), subcontractor(s) May need to go through their OSP’s  Support letters  IRB issues Calculating a Timeline for Preparation: Things to Consider

9.  Set up a time table that works backwards from the due date with specific goals/ planned accomplishments  Post on mirror at home and by computer at work  Revise forward, never backward  It always takes longer than you think Key Concept 4

10.  Look for requirements that will take time to assemble  Make a list of exactly what you need  Call program officer if confused for clarification Study the Sponsors Guidelines

12.  Comprehensible to an informed layman  Place your problem in context by common knowledge  Show how your work will advance the field  May require importance to the public health  If complicated project, this section can specify order and arrangement of future sections The Introduction: Capsule statement of what is being proposed. Tone-sober self confidence

13.  Establish who you are  Identify how this project fits organizational directives  Lead logically to background The Introduction or Specific Aims

14. Specific Aims Example

15.  Be realistic in scale  Define phases, especially if some time will be spent developing an analytical method  Be explicit about assumptions or hypotheses  Consider posing the specific question(s) to be answered The Background: Detailed explanation of proposed research. Tone-scientific, technical and thorough

16. Example of Background

18.  Be clear about schedule of work Develop a time line / calendar  Project problems with solutions  Be specific about data analysis The Proposed Research II

19. Timeline Example

20. Study Design Example

21. Be certain that the research design/objectives and the research methods are evident  design or rationale - conceptualization of experiments (creativity)  methods – straightforward and detailed  analysis – convey data analysis and relationship to hypothesis  limitations and alternative plans The Proposed Research III

22. Analysis Plan Example

23.  Do not give up hope  Resubmissions are a way of life Key Concept 5

27. EDITING TIPS NAOMI L. C. LUBAN, MD

28. Warning Signals: Don’t Let This Be You Problems identified  The problem is not of sufficient importance or is unlikely to produce anynew or useful information.  The proposed research is based on a hypothesis that rests on insufficient evidence, is doubtful, or is unsound.  The problem is more complex than the investigator appears to realize.  The problem has only local significance, or is one of production or control, or otherwise fails to fall sufficiently clearly within the general field of health-related research.  The problem is scientifically premature and warrants, at most, only a pilot study.  The research as proposed is overly involved, with too many elements under simultaneous investigation.  The description of the nature of the research and of its significance leaves the proposal nebulous and diffuse and without a clear research aim.

29. Approach  The proposed tests, or methods, or scientific procedures are unsuited to the stated objective.  The description of the approach is too nebulous, diffuse, and lacking in clarity to permit adequate evaluation.  The overall design of the study has not been carefully thought out.  The statistical aspects of the approach have not been given sufficient consideration.  The approach lacks scientific imagination.  Controls are either inadequately conceived or inadequately described.  The material the investigator proposes to use is unsuited to the objective of the study or is difficult to obtain.  The number of observations is unsuitable.  The equipment contemplated is outmoded or otherwise unsuitable. Warning Signals: Don’t Let This Be You

30. Investigator  The investigator does not have adequate experience or training for this research.  The investigator appears to be unfamiliar with recent pertinent literature or methods.  The investigator's previously published work in this field does not inspire confidence.  The investigator proposes to rely too heavily on insufficiently experienced associates.  The investigator is spreading himself too thin; he will be more productive if he concentrates on fewer projects.  The investigator needs more liaison with colleagues in this field or in collateral fields. Warning Signals: Don’t Let This Be You

31. Other  The requirements for equipment or personnel are unrealistic.  It appears that other responsibilities would prevent devotion of sufficient time and attention to this research.  The institutional setting is unfavorable.  Research grants to the investigator, now in force, are adequate in scope and amount to cover the proposed research. Warning Signals: Don’t Let This Be You

32.  Maintain paragraph unit: topic sentence with 8 lines per paragraph  Use devices to indicate structure headers / bullets / numbers  Use transition sentences between sections  Put in topic sentences that make sense improves readability Editing Tips: Organizing

33.  Keep sentences short  Avoid vague modifiers  Eliminate unnecessary propositions  Provide graphics to clarify ideas Editing Tips: Clarity I

34.  Avoid jargon, clichés  Eliminate redundancy  Use active voice Editing Tips: Clarity II

35.  Connect ideas with transitional phrases  Accentuate “to illustrate…moreover… consequently…” the positive  Eliminate negative words / phrases  Show confidence (but not too much) Editing Tips: Edit for Confidence

36.  Subject-verb agreement  Pronoun agreement  Avoid split infinitives – double negatives  Use parallel construction Editing Tips: Edit for Grammar I What’s wrong with this slide?

37. Verb tense Established knowledge – present Current methods – past Presentation – present Attribution - past Editing Tips: Edit for Grammar II We will show… prior studies by one group demonstrated