Every research applicant wants to be in the lead while competing for a grant. The larger grants, like R01, particularly require the preliminary data to stay in the competition. The grant proposals without preliminary research do not stand a chance except for those applying for smaller grants (R03). Acquiring accurate preliminary research information is what every research writer should strive for. Regrettably, several grant proposals are rejected every year based on the flaws observed in the preliminary data section. Many applicants are asked for revision and resubmission due to the errors pointed out by the panel reviewers. This article will guide you on how to deal with these errors.
Before constructing the preliminary data section, one must know the reason to construct this section. This section is important for the reviewers because:
Â
This section is scrutinized by a panel of peer reviewers, and the potential flaws are noted. These errors are highlighted in the form of ‘criticism notes’ that are written in response to your proposal. Many writers commit mistakes that are very commonly found among the declined applications. You can easily avoid these errors if you are guided enough. So, the following sub-headings will point out the most popular mistakes in this section:
Â
It is great to provide your preliminary research data, but overloading your application is not a wise approach. Sadly, the research writers state every detail regarding the preliminary research. They do not leave suspense for the reviewers regarding the progression of their research. The reviewers learn every detail from the start, and there is nothing new left for them to look forward to in the coming sections of the applications. Information regarding all the other sections is elaborated on it. This bores the reviewers, and they see no innovative thrillers in your research idea. Hence, they decline your proposal due to the lack of interesting spoilers that they often seek.
How to Rewrite?
Excessive elaboration makes your application dull for the grant reviewers. To correct this flaw, you have to follow these protocols:
The data obtained from outside sources are prohibited in the preliminary data section. Heaps of the grant proposals are criticized by the reviewers due to the inclusion of information quoted from the literature databases to support their preliminary research. The interference from the foreign sources supporting research hypotheses lowers the value of your application instead of increasing it. Such type of information is only beneficial in the other sections. Usually, this point is neglected by the writers, and both inside and outside sources of information are mingled together, resulting in confusion and grant rejection.
How to Rewrite?
The preliminary data section is solely dedicated to the data obtained wholly from your preliminary research. Here you have to state that your research laboratory is big enough to obtain an enormous amount of preliminary data (Ronald, 2012). The ground rules for correcting this error are:
As a grant writer, you can demonstrate your research data with the help of diagrams, tables, charts, and figures. However, the represented data should be easy to read and comprehend. In many grant applications, the information scripted in this section in the form of pictorial representations is either complex or difficult to read. This greatly disappoints the reviewers and forces them to ask the writers for resubmission after clarifying the complicated data shown through complex diagrams.
How to Rewrite?
Simplicity and clarity are the key features to representing an idea. Thus, to rectify this flaw, you have to keep these points in your mind while giving a diagrammatical representation of your data derived from your preliminary research:
Â
This error is found in the majority of the sections of the declined grant applicants. The level of irrelevant data is at its peak in the preliminary data section of several applications. This has introduced the term called ‘fishing expedition’ by the reviewers in the criticism notes. Fishing expedition means searching for relevant knowledge in the sea of information provided by grant writers. The provision of irrelevant data in this section tires the panel reviewers and compels them to reject the research application.
How to Rewrite?
To avoid this error, the writers should act as per these steps:
Â
Every section of your research should be scripted like a story for the reviewers with one event leading to another. The preliminary data section is no different. Now and then, we hear the criticism regarding the ambiguity and lack of correlation between statements in this section. When the statements are incoherent, it is difficult for the peer-reviewers to comprehend the meaning of the data derived from your preliminary research. This badly portrays your writing skills and harms your level of competency in the field of research, as well.
How to Rewrite?
This kind of error should be corrected by adhering to the following guidelines:
Â
The supporting information of your preliminary research section is related to the innovative designs, plans, and techniques that you will be explaining to prove the utility of your research idea. Various applications are deficient in the supportive data regarding their research idea every year. The writers do not either know the importance of introducing novel techniques through preliminary research or have enough dexterity to demonstrate the potential of newness in their proposed research idea. Hence, a lack of this type of supporting data urges the reviewers to reject the grant applications.
How to Rewrite?
This flaw can be removed from your application by keeping certain rules in your mind. These significant principles include:
Â
The preliminary research data should not be biased. All researchers are prone to imperfections and have their shortcomings. Applications with one-sided data favoring their research aims and outcomes are said to be artificial. These writers ignore the limitations of their preliminary research and only script those points that back their research idea. The level of objectivity is zero in such applications, which is very unrealistic. This makes the reviewers suspicious of the research idea that you are suggesting. Therefore, you are asked for a resubmission after adding the limitations of the preliminary research that you conducted.
How to Rewrite?
One-sided text can be altered according to the reviewers by following these instructions:
Â
The portion regarding the preliminary research data acts as the backbone of your grant proposal. It is a solid piece of evidence for the applicability and reliability of your proposed research concept. No research is perfect, but it should be good despite the limitations and objectivity that it offers. This perfection can only be attained by avoiding potential errors that can arise while loading your application with the preliminary data. This article can guide you even when you are asked for a resubmission after revising your errors. All the important guidelines for editing your errors in this section are exclusively provided here. You can easily benefit from them whenever needed.
Introduction Pipetting, at first glance, would seem a fairly simple and easy task. Essentially described as glass or plastic tubes used to measure and transfer
Resource Identification Initiative: A Key to Scientific Success and Analytics The key to success can be found in the essential principles of the Resource Identification
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY One of the most important pieces of equipment in the laboratory is the centrifuge, which facilitates the separation of samples of
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY One of the most important pieces of equipment in the laboratory is the centrifuge, which facilitates the separation of samples of
DISCLAIMER: ConductScience and affiliate products are NOT designed for human consumption, testing, or clinical utilization. They are designed for pre-clinical utilization only. Customers purchasing apparatus for the purposes of scientific research or veterinary care affirm adherence to applicable regulatory bodies for the country in which their research or care is conducted.
