Once your application is in the hands of the funding agency, the review process begins. For you, so does the waiting. Be patient. You can’t rush these things. What you can do, however, is to be prepared to respond to the report when it arrives, which means being ready to answer any questions the reviewers might pose, to meet their requests for explanations or additional information, and to navigate your application through this final (albeit sometimes challenging or even downright frustrating) phase of the process of getting funded.
The actual review process—who does the review and how the results are communicated— depends on the particular funding agency. The program officer can answer any questions you might have about the procedure your application will follow. For instance, an evaluation report may or may not be sent to you without requesting it; it may or may not be a complete record of the review; and it may or may not contain contradictory feedback because not all reviewers think alike. Nevertheless, all feedback can be useful. Here are some typical criteria that reviewers will consider in evaluating your submission:
- How original and significant is the proposed project?
- Is the proposed research methodology adequate for the project?
- How qualified are the principal investigator and the research staff?
- What institutional research resources are available to the investigator?
- Does the application include a reasonable budget and time frame for the project?
- How relevant is the proposed project to the funding agency’s mission and current priorities?
- Does the application provide satisfactory assurance of compliance with the requirements of the appropriate regulatory agencies?
The Possible Results: Yes, No, or Maybe
It might take months to get an answer to your funding request, but when you do, your application will either be scored high, low, or somewhere in between, with a corresponding likelihood of being funded, or it will be rejected (unscored).
If you’re fortunate enough to get a high score along with a strong indication of funding, congratulations. It’s time to prepare to start your research.
However, if your project is funded with a much lower budget than you requested, or if your project lands in that “gray zone” where funding is uncertain, what are your options?
- In the first case, if your project is underfunded, start by determining what you can do with the funding you will receive and then revise your objectives, your experiments, and your budget accordingly. However, don’t scrap your original plans; save the remaining work for another application at a later time. Just because the project doesn’t evolve as originally envisioned doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
- In the second case, if funding for your project is uncertain, you might consider discussing the situation with the program officer at the funding agency to see if there is additional material that you can provide to buttress the feasibility of your application and/or address reviewers’ concerns. In tough economic times, more researchers are vying for shrinking financial resources, so be prepared to work harder to justify your proposed project—and know that you’re not alone.
Likewise, if your application is rejected, realize that in the current economic climate, even researchers who have had no trouble getting funded in the past are now facing the prospect of their applications being rejected. What are the options in this case?
- One choice is to resubmit your original application along with a reasoned, thorough response to the concerns or objections raised by the review process.
- Another option is to revise your application before resubmitting it. In doing so, note the changes you are making in response to reviewers’ comments or provide a rationale for not making requested changes. While it’s not necessary to make all changes that reviewers might want, it’s important to justify your decision not to do so. (Obviously, this is a matter that calls for tact on the part of the investigator.)
- If, for some reason, you believe that your application didn’t receive a fair review, you could request reconsideration by another panel of reviewers. While this strategy might work, it’s not without pitfalls. A new review panel could like your proposal, or it could criticize different or additional points than the original reviewers. Reviewers usually respond better to revised applications that address or incorporate their suggested changes.
- You could, of course, drop your project, but if you were convinced that your idea was a good one at the outset, it should still be a good idea—even if it needs some refining. Let’s be honest: maybe your application was lacking in new or original ideas or sufficient experimental detail; perhaps it outlined an unrealistic amount of work or revealed an absence of necessary scientific rigor. Being rejected isn’t the end of the line unless you let it be; it could be just what you need to refine your application into an outstanding one.
The Web site of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) features an informative resource called NIH Grant Cycle: Application to Renewal, which includes a section titled Part 11b. Not Funded, Reapply that offers practical advice from the NIH perspective about overcoming a funding setback.
