Interlude: Framing for Reviewers, Overlooking Problems, and AI in NIH Grants
Earlier this week, this post landed in my feed. In the video, Matt shares 5 ways to market a Snickers bar. Same candy bar, but different packaging to appeal to different audiences.
This tailored packaging is also an important strategy for writing grants. Different grant agencies have different review panels, so you need to package—or write—your grant for that particular panel.
For example, at the NIH, study sections (as they stand today) are experts in your field. So you can use more technical language and frame how the project will advance the field. At a foundation, the review panel will likely have experts, and it may also have patients, donors, or other members of the public. So you need to write with more accessible language and frame how the project will be meaningful to everyone on the review panel.
Same project, but different packaging to appeal to different audiences.
Or, as I like to say, it's all about the framing.
So the next time you write a grant, do some research on the agency and anticipated reviewers, and frame the project in a way that appeals to them.
Now onto this week's round-up...
💌 Round-up
💻 From My Desk
10 Strategies to Edit Smarter and Spot Writing Mistakes
Have you been looking at your draft for so long that you can no longer see the mistakes, gaps in logic, and other problems in the text? In this video, you’ll learn 10 strategies to help you stop overlooking the problems in your writing, see your text with fresh eyes, and craft more effective scientific and medical documents.
👓 Reading
Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications
”NIH will not consider applications that are either substantially developed by AI, or contain sections substantially developed by AI, to be original ideas of applicants. If the detection of AI is identified post award, NIH may refer the matter to the Office of Research Integrity to determine whether there is research misconduct while simultaneously taking enforcement actions..."
"NIH will only accept six new, renewal, resubmission, or revision applications from an individual Principal Investigator/Program Director or Multiple Principal Investigator for all council rounds in a calendar year. This policy applies to all activity codes except T activity codes and R13 Conference Grant Applications."
What your Results section isn’t
In this article, Stephen Heard shares three things that "your Results section isn’t. Or at least, some things it isn’t. Or at least, some things it shouldn’t be". These things include: the story of your research life, a do-over for the way you organize things, and a chance to try out cool new data visualization.
What do the public think of preprints?
“Recent studies suggest that, even when provided with a definition, the general public remains unclear on what a preprint is. The public’s perception of research credibility depends more on the broader framing of research findings than on disclosure of preprint status. . .These findings suggest that disclosure of preprint status alone may not be enough to build public understanding. Dr Alice Fleerackers, co-author of both studies, argues that the scientific community must also do more to help the public understand how peer review works.”
💬 Quote
“It all starts with being curious and humble; putting yourself in the shoes of your audience and going on the journey with them.” – Samara Johansson
Thank you so much for reading.
Warmly,
Crystal
