Successfully
Crafting Research Grant
Applications: peer review
Professor Stephen Wilkinson
Research Institute for Social Sciences
Keele University
Overview


Writing for peer reviewers
Pre-submission review: informal &/or
internal

‘Right to Reply’ / ‘PI Response’

Questions and Comments
Disciplinary Differences


Some points more generalisable than
others
AHRC, Wellcome Trust (Biomedical Ethics
& Medical Humanities), some ESRC,
various internally
Who are the your reviewers?

Find out what you can about them

May not be specialists in your sub-field

Busy and short of time

Faults stand out more than virtues,
especially to sceptical readers
Writing for Peer Reviewers 1

Make the content: (a) (in part) accessible to
non-specialists, (b) clearly laid out, (c) plain
language at least for summaries

“Easy writing makes hard reading”

Sometimes “less is more”

The importance of x may be obvious to people
working on x but not to anyone else – so spell it
out
Writing for Peer Reviewers 2


Answer the question, follow the
instructions (e.g. on forms).
For example, make sure that your
research questions are research questions
and that lay summaries are lay summaries
Writing for Peer Reviewers 3



Remain focussed, minimise loose ends and
things that could antagonise (e.g. spelling
mistakes, excessive repetition, inconsistency)
Remember that your aim is to answer a set of
questions not (e.g.) to write a book
Give specific examples of and evidence for your
own excellence rather than baldly asserting it
Pre-submission review




Internal peer review (formal, informal) &/or
trusted contacts outside Keele
Vitally important for improving quality and hence
your chances of success
Encourage people to be critical
Easier to take advantage of for schemes with no
deadline (or multiple deadlines)
Right to Reply / PI Response 1



Allow yourself a ‘cooling off’ period
Produce a list of criticisms, consolidate
similar points from different reviewers
Respond to each in turn, in order of
importance (refer to specific points in the
reviews)
Right to Reply / PI Response 2



If up against a word limit don’t be afraid to
ignore minor criticisms that aren’t ‘deal breakers’
“Less is more” again – make sure it’s readable
Don’t waste time restating virtues and be
cautious about playing one reviewer off against
another (although a bit of this is OK).
Right to Reply / PI Response 3



Keep the tone calm and matter of fact; sounding
outraged may reduce your credibility and annoy
(or amuse!) panellists
Be cautious about direct attacks on reviewers
(“C obviously knows nothing about X”)
More subtle attacks may work: e.g. suggesting
that someone has overlooked part of the
application, or of the relevant literature
Any Questions or
Comments?