15. Revising and Resubmitting the Proposal
Because nearly all researchers, sooner or later, have an application rejected and have to go through the revision and resubmission process, it is worthwhile to consider strategies to make that process a successful one that leads to a funded project.
In today’s highly competitive funding environment, many excellent applications do not get funded. It is not uncommon for the applicant to have to consider revising a rejected proposal based on reviewers’ comments, and resubmitting the application to the same funding program or a different one. Because nearly all researchers, sooner or later, have an application rejected and have to go through the revision and resubmission process, it is worthwhile to consider strategies to make that process a successful one that leads to a funded project.
Post-Review Process
Respect the Views of Peers
Most reviews will have been written by an applicant’s peers and are meant to be helpful. They are intended to point out weaknesses in any aspect of the application, including such things as the scholarly and scientific ideas presented, the research methods and plans, and the clarity with which the applicant has presented his or her ideas. As the applicant considers the negative comments of reviewers, it is helpful to keep in mind that even the most excellent proposal can be improved by carefully weighing input from peers. In fact, the foundation of a good (but not necessarily positive) review can become a roadmap for the applicant to improve the proposal and ultimately to get it funded.
Review the Reviews: Discuss Reviews with Senior Faculty
Sometimes, with a negative review, it is hard to tell whether a reviewer has identified a genuine problem with the proposed research, or whether he or she simply disagrees with the applicant’s ideas. In the first case, the applicant would have to re-think the scholarly or scientific approach, whereas in the second case, the applicant would have to more carefully justify the idea and approach. To help sort this out, applicants can consider discussing their reviews with senior faculty members in their department. Most senior faculty will have had experience with both applying for their own research funding and reviewing other people’s applications for research funding. They may be able to offer insights on the interpretation of reviewers’ comments and to help applicants decide how best to respond to the comments.
Review the Reviews: Discuss Reviews with Program Managers
It is possible to receive reviews that are not so much negative as they are off base; these can be unconstructive. For example, applicants may receive two reviews rated “Very Good” and one rated “Poor.” The applicant will have to decide whether the “Poor” review is legitimate or an outlier. Outlier reviews can come about in a number of ways. Perhaps the reviewer did not take the time necessary to thoroughly understand the application. Perhaps the reviewer has a personal or scientific axe to grind. Perhaps the reviewer was annoyed by the proposal, thinking it was poorly written, poorly organized, or just plain too hard to read. On the other hand, perhaps the reviewer saw a problem in the application that the other two reviewers missed. In any event, discussing reviews with the program manager can help the applicant decide how to respond to seemingly unconstructive reviews.
Respond to Reviewer Comments
When a proposal is rejected, the applicant must decide how and to what degree he or she will respond to reviewers’ comments when preparing to resubmit the application. Carefully assessing the reviews, as discussed above, is really the only way to evaluate and respond to reviewers’ comments. The applicant has to decide whether addressing reviewers’ comments will strengthen the proposal. It is possible to respond in a general way to the reviewers’ conceptual comments, and in a very specific way to reviewers’ specific comments. It is also possible to respond in greater detail to some of the reviewers’ comments than to others. Reviewers’ comments that focus heavily on the style and organization of the proposal may be relatively easy to address. Comments that call for a basic scholarly or scientific revision, however, are likely to be more difficult to attend to. Ultimately, of course, it is left to the judgment and discretion of the applicant to address or not address reviewers’ comments.
Determine Whether Reviews Are Reliable Guides to Program Objectives for the Next Funding Cycle
The crux of evaluating reviewers’ comments is determining whether they have identified substantive faults with the proposal that can and should be fixed, or whether they have focused more on the extent to which the applicant addressed specific funding program objectives. When it is the latter, it is very important that the applicant discuss the nature of the reviews with the program manager. Some funding programs may have very consistent objectives from one funding cycle to the next, but many do not. It obviously would not be in the applicant’s best interest to address an individual reviewer’s comments if those comments would not be relevant to the next funding cycle anyway. Program managers will be the best source of information about this question.
Answer the Question: “Do I have a Viable Research Idea?”
Reviews may generate a fundamental reassessment by the applicant of the intellectual merit of the research idea, methods, and work plan. When reviews come back that uniformly identify intrinsic flaws with the applicant’s basic concept, idea, or methods, the applicant needs to determine whether he or she has a viable research idea, or whether the fundamental research approach needs to be altered or even abandoned. It is possible that reviewers’ comments will spark an applicant’s insight and lead to a revised direction (“I should have thought of doing my study that way…”). On the other hand, unanimously negative reviews may lead the applicant to conclude that he or she would be better served putting energy into developing an entirely new research topic than into revising the old one. It may even take the applicant more than one round of rejected proposals to make the difficult decision to either fundamentally change the idea or come up with a new one.
Competitive Resubmissions
Once an applicant has decided that the basic research idea and proposal can be revised and improved, and that he or she intends to resubmit the proposal, there are some strategies that may help make the resubmission as competitive as possible:
- Be certain the targeted funding program is the correct one for the proposal.
- Be certain revisions that have been made based on reviewers’ comments are clearly identified in the proposal.
- Focus on submitting a great proposal.
When considering a resubmission, it may be wise for the applicant to search alternative funding agencies for funding programs that may be applicable to the proposed work. There is some overlap among funding programs, and applicants may find that the proposal could fare as well as or even better at an entirely different funding program or agency. Applicants may wish to revisit the evaluation of funding agencies and their research priorities; it may be possible to find a funding program that would have been a better “fit” in the first place. Care should be taken, however, that proposal revisions not be made based on reviewers’ comments for one funding agency if those comments run contrary to the priorities of the new agency or program. In other words, don’t fix what’s not broken according to the mission and priorities of the resubmission agency.
On the other hand, when revisions are being made – especially with the intent to resubmit to the same funding program – applicants should make sure those revisions are clearly identified. Many funding agencies ask applicants to clearly state when a proposal is a resubmission. It will be much easier for the program manager and reviewers to assess the revised proposal if the problems with the initial proposal are identified early on in the revised proposal, along with a discussion of how the problems were addressed. An exception to that, clearly, would be when the reviewers’ comments dealt primarily with the proposal’s organization and style.
Finally, the applicant can enhance the competitiveness of a resubmission by preparing a superb proposal. The applicant should present the idea with clarity so that reviewers are left with no doubts about the scholarly and scientific objectives and methods, or about the significance of the study’s outcome for the funding agency and society at large.
