1. The reviewer’s perspective
Grant Writing:
The reviewer’s perspective
Bob Macmillan
25 August, 2008

2. The following is a list of Problems seen in various
parts of SSHRC proposals followed Suggestions.
These Problems and Suggestions are based on
my 4 years as a member and Chair of SSHRC
Committee 17.

3. General problems 1. The parts of the proposal do not cohere
2. Language is purposely obtuse
3. The proposal needs to be edited
4. The researcher did not demonstrate
familiarity or expertise with the field

4. General problems 5. The curriculum vitae is inaccurate
(continued)
5. The curriculum vitae is inaccurate
or not clear (e.g., “double dipping”, wrong
attribution or author order wrong format)
6. Tasks are not clearly defined
7. The proposal demonstrates a
lack of knowledge of the research
site

5. Issues with the Problem to be explored
The problem is not relevant
(e.g., nothing new, the contribution will be minimal)
2. The problem is not clearly articulated
(e.g., language obtuse, confused)
3. The problem cannot be investigated as
articulated (e.g., it’s too broad)

6. Issues with the literature
1. The literature is inappropriate
2. The section is too long
3. the review is not focussed
4. Critical pieces are missing or not
sufficiently exhaustive

7. The Question with the question
The question does not follow from the
problem statement or the literature
2. The question/hypothesis cannot be
addressed with the methodology selected
3. The questions cannot be answered
within the time frame and/or within
the budget maximum of the program

8. Methodology issues
1. The methodology is not appropriate
2. The methodology is too ambitious
3. The methodology is not developed
sufficiently
4. The rationale for the use of specific
research sites or subjects is not
defensible

9. Issues with the analysis
The data gathered cannot be analysed as
proposed
2. More data are collected than analysed
3. Unnecessary data are collected
4. No clear plan for analysis is presented or
it is too general

10. Budget problems 1. Inaccurate and unjustified expenses
(just a few)
1. Inaccurate and unjustified expenses
(e.g., travel, transcription rates)
2. Little connection among the methods, the analysis and the budget
3. Ineligible expenses claimed
4. Budget under/over estimated

11. Budget problems 5. Funds are not used efficiently
(continued)
5. Funds are not used efficiently
(e.g., unrealistic requests for equipment)
6. The mathematics are wrong
7. Items budgeted are not needed or sufficiently
justified in the proposal

12. Suggestions 1. Read and follow the guidelines exactly
2. Examine the titles of successful applications
3. Read a successful proposal
4. Pass the proposal to a colleague for comment
5. Give yourself time to develop the proposal
6. Incorporate reviewers’ suggestions