Research Grant Application Process

Here is an interesting career column in Nature by Gerald Schweiger on what he calls a “point of no returns” in research funding. The core idea is simple and uncomfortable. At some point, the total cost of competing for grants becomes equal to, or even higher than, the money that is actually being awarded. Time spent writing proposals, reviewing them, coordinating consortia, and running administrative processes can collectively exceed the value of the funded research itself. When that happens, the system is no longer inefficient. It is extractive. Using the concept of the Szilard point, the author illustrates this with the EU funding call “GenAI for Africa.” Out of 215 proposals, only two are expected to be funded. Depending on the assumptions, the estimated total cost of preparing and evaluating those applications ranges from about €5.3 million to more than €40 million, for a call with a total budget of €5 million. Even the most conservative estimate suggests that taxpayers and researchers may have spent more on the process than on the science. What makes this especially troubling is not just the waste of money, but the waste of attention, energy, and intellectual focus. Early-career researchers learn very quickly that publishing, networking, and even choosing research questions are often subordinated to one overarching goal: securing the next grant. Science becomes optimized for survival in funding competitions rather than for curiosity, rigor, or societal impact. This is not an argument against selectivity or quality control. Scarce resources always require difficult allocation decisions. But it is an argument against pretending that hyper-competition is automatically fair, efficient, or meritocratic. When success rates drop below one percent, we are no longer selecting the best ideas. We are mostly selecting who can afford to play the game longest. If we want to change this, we need to be willing to rethink funding as a system, not just tweak individual calls. More focused calls, staged application procedures, partial lotteries after quality thresholds, or peer-nomination models are not radical ideas. They are pragmatic attempts to reduce systemic waste and redirect effort back to where it belongs. A concrete first step would be this: funders should be required to publicly report not only success rates and awarded budgets, but also estimated application and evaluation costs. Once we routinely ask whether a call is approaching or crossing the Szilard point, it becomes much harder to justify business as usual. Here is the link: https://lnkd.in/dyDqzBNR #Academia #ResearchFunding #AcademicLife #ResearchSystem

You applied to 100+ jobs but no interviews? Here's what's actually happening. Your experience is valuable. You're just invisible. Let me explain why, and how to fix it. When you apply online, your resume goes into a database called an ATS (Applicant Tracking System). Think of it like a massive filing cabinet. Now here's the key: Some recruiters don't read every resume. They search. Just like you search Google, they search their database: "Python AND data analysis" "SAFe AND agile transformation" "Tableau AND dashboard" If your resume doesn't have their exact search terms, you’re making it harder to get discovered. You're not rejected. You're just not found. But here's the secret: The job description often tells you EXACTLY what keywords they'll search for. It's like having the answer key. Example from a real job posting: If they say "Experience with Snowflake required"... → They'll search "Snowflake" → Make sure you write "Built data warehouse in Snowflake…" Not "cloud database" or "modern data platform." Use their exact words: Snowflake. I've mapped out 80 keywords that get candidates noticed in 2025: Top searches happening right now: • Python, TensorFlow, LangChain (AI roles) • Kubernetes, Terraform, Docker (tech leadership) • Power BI, Tableau, SQL (data leadership) • SAFe, Agile, DevOps (transformation roles) Your action plan: 1. Read the job description carefully 2. Circle every tool, platform, or methodology mentioned 3. Add those EXACT terms to your resume (if you have that experience) 4. Use them naturally in your accomplishments Example: Instead of: "Led team through digital modernization" You say: "Led SAFe agile transformation using ServiceNow and Jira, reducing delivery time by 40%" You have the experience. Now make it searchable. Your next role isn't rejecting you. It just hasn't found you yet. You’ve got this! 💡 Save this cheat sheet of 80 searchable keywords ♻️ Share to help someone in your network Follow me for more insider recruiting insights

My first 5 grant applications were rejected. Every single one. Here's how I went from £10k to £10m in research grant funding: I remember opening that fifth rejection email and thinking maybe my research just wasn't good enough. Maybe I wasn't cut out for this. Then a panel reviewer told me something that changed everything. She said: "I stopped reading on page 2." Not because the science was weak. Because the way I presented it was. I had buried the real-world impact on page 3. I led with the literature gap instead of the problem. My methodology was sound but my narrative was invisible. I was writing for academics. I should have been writing for funders. So I rebuilt my entire proposal structure around three principles. I now call it the 3P Proposal Structure. P1: Problem Framing. Lead with the real-world problem and its cost. Not the gap in the literature. Funders don't fund gaps. They fund solutions. "This problem costs the NHS £2.3 billion annually" hits harder than "this area remains under-explored." P2: Path Innovation. Show what you will do differently. Not just what you will study. Every applicant studies something. Very few explain why their approach is the one that will actually work. P3: Projected Impact. Connect your outcomes to the stakeholders who fund research. If the funder can see themselves in your story, you win. Same research question. Completely different proposal structure. The next application secured half a million pounds. Then a million. Then over the course of my career, more than £10 million in research funding. Grant writing is storytelling. Your research is the plot. The funder needs to see themselves in the story. What's the most frustrating feedback you've received on a grant application? Save this framework. Repost for anyone applying for funding. #GrantWriting #AcademicFunding

𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗧𝗥𝗟. 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗶𝗻 the big grants. For years, we’ve treated Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) as the holy grail. We rush to prove we can move from TRL 4 to TRL 7. But we often ignore the "𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵"—where perfectly functional tech fails because nobody wants to use it. The European Commission is now closing that gap. The 𝗛𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗼𝗻 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗖𝗹𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝟱 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗺𝗲 has officially introduced the 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗟𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹 Pilot (SRL). It’s not just a policy recommendation. For specific calls, it is now a m͟a͟n͟d͟a͟t͟o͟r͟y͟ contractual requirement. The shift is clear: 𝗢𝗹𝗱 𝗪𝗮𝘆: "We built the tool (𝗧𝗥𝗟 𝟳)." 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗪𝗮𝘆: "We built the tool AND validated that society accepts it (𝗦𝗥𝗟 𝟲)." Societal Readiness Levels (SRL) 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀, institutions, and communities to adopt your solution. If your TRL is 9 but your SRL is 1, you don't have an innovation. 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗶𝗽: Don't just mention "social science" in a generic Work Package. Allocate a specific budget to measuring SRL alongside TRL. This is the only way the evaluator will know you mean it. 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: How will you track SRL? Or are you already tracking SRL in your consortium?

I recently received a rejection from a journal. It was not just a rejection but a desk rejection—the kind where your manuscript does not even make it past the editor's desk. They mentioned that the work was not particularly novel and did not quite align with the journal. They had a point. I have been working on this material for a while, and perhaps the novelty become diluted in the process. Every scientist, at some point, faces rejection. It is a rite of passage in academia. Rejections happen all the time, and how we handle them matters. It is about resilience and recalibration. So, what can we do when faced with such setbacks? One way is to look for another journal. Sure, it is tempting to be discouraged, but the truth is, there are many journals out there, each competing for the best papers in their field. What might not be a good fit for one journal could be exactly what another is looking for. The key is knowing the landscape. So, take some time to research journals that are better aligned with your study’s focus, and give it another shot. Another important step is to revisit your literature survey. Journals often reject papers when they feel the work does not clearly state its contribution. We might think we have made a novel point, but it is easy to forget that novelty must be evident, not just to us but to reviewers who might not be familiar with the nuances of your research area. A strong, well-written literature review can be the bridge that takes your work from "not novel" to "groundbreaking." On data. Is your data presented in a way that highlights the core contributions of your work? It is easy to overlook the storytelling aspect of scientific research. Every figure, table, and graph should support the narrative of innovation. If you are not making your data sing, it is easy for reviewers to skim past your most important findings. Go back and ensure the way you present your data draws attention to the novelty. What, really, is novelty? It is a question every scientist grapples with at some point. Novelty is not just about being first; it is about doing something in a new way, solving a problem differently, or opening up a new avenue of research. It is the ability to see connections others do not. If we cannot articulate that innovation in a way that is compelling, the novelty is lost on others. Frame your research in a way that speaks to the current challenges in the field. Why is your work necessary? What questions does it answer that have not been addressed before? Handling rejection is part of the scientific process. Every rejection is an opportunity to refine your work and sharpen your message. Instead of dwelling on the "no," think of how you can make your next submission stronger. Every setback is a step toward making your research even better. So, embrace the process, learn from it, and let it guide you to eventual success. Good luck to everyone and especially to myself on the next submission!

Worth applying. Almost $2.1B in funding for climate and ESG technologies! Nine funding routes worth knowing if you're building in clean tech, sustainability or ESG right now. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programme - up to around $1.6 million across Phase I and II, recently reauthorised through 2031 after a five month lapse. https://lnkd.in/en3AziQe National Science Foundation (NSF) America's Seed Fund - up to $305,000 for Phase I, a strong low-friction entry point via their Project Pitch process. https://seedfund.nsf.gov Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) - non-dilutive funding for high risk, high reward energy technology, often several million dollars per award. https://lnkd.in/eBdJRt_K Third Derivative - RMI and New Energy Nexus's global climate tech accelerator, connecting hard tech startups to investors and corporate partners rather than writing a fixed cheque. https://lnkd.in/eHr55UtC European Union Innovation Fund - one of the world's largest clean tech programmes, with individual grants ranging from tens of millions to over a billion euros. https://lnkd.in/ew3KXYGn EIC - European Innovation Council Accelerator - pairs a grant of up to 2.5 million euros with optional equity investment of up to 10 million euros for deep tech SMEs. https://lnkd.in/ej-qXnHK Breakthrough Energy Fellows - catalytic, non-dilutive funding from $50,000 to $500,000 for early stage climate innovators. https://lnkd.in/e__iKQ49 Elemental Impact - a non-profit climate investor backing companies from pre-seed to Series C, including a Data Center Innovation Initiative funded by Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft. https://lnkd.in/ekPnxNRK New South Wales Clean Technology Innovation Grant - up to 5 million Australian dollars for Australian businesses piloting lab-proven clean technologies, applications close 8 September 2026. https://lnkd.in/ejSr4WzD A few things worth knowing before applying: some of these are non-dilutive grants as well as equity investments, deadlines and open/closed status shift constantly, and a handful (like the EU Innovation Fund) operate on a completely different scale to early stage programmes, so it's worth matching the opportunity to your stage rather than chasing the biggest number on the page.

When I sent a paper in to a prestigious journal as a younger academic they just replied saying it wasn’t good enough - that was it. I ‘improved’ it, and sent it on to another journal. This time it came back - with two brutal reviews from anonymous readers. The email arrived on a Sunday morning and I eagerly read through the comments. It all got too much - I wasn’t sure I could continue along this path. It seems silly now that one journal article rejection could have impacted my career. The email also had some notes from the Editor: -It’s not as bad as it seems. -The topic is important and it deserves more than this paper is currently giving -Reframe the argument in this way…. -Consider adding an introduction that provides more context. -The conclusion has to be built on the evidence presented and make a clear point. -Come back to the reviews in a few days time and reflect. Go through the paper alongside the reviewers comments. This was sound advice. The first point is fundamental. After spending months crafting an article/grant it is so frustrating and hurtful to have it rejected and requiring a re-write - but it is never as bad as it first seems. After working my way through the corrections, contextualising, and reframing a new paper began to take shape. A lot of what I thought was important in the earlier version was cut. I fashioned a much stronger argument and put together a far more convincing article. It was also shorter, faster paced, and with far more content than the earlier versions. I was relieved the first versions of this work had not been published. I was glad that the work had been rejected and that I had the chance to improve it, based on the valuable ideas and suggestions of the editor and reviewers. It’s not really ‘rejection’ it’s more opportunity for refinement. Does this mean that I want these ‘opportunities’ - no, not always. But as I reflect on this experience I can’t think of a single article that has not been refined, enhanced, and become more focused. -Always aim for the best Journals possible. Although there are exceptions (as described above) they often have the best editors, reviewers, and production processes. -Don’t be afraid of reaching out to the Editor to discuss your ideas and overall vision -Rejection will happen. It’s part of the process and will ultimately enhance your work.

Last week, I reviewed 3 papers in a row that all had the same problem: Good data. Solid methods. No visible novelty. Not because the work wasn’t original, but because the authors assumed the originality would somehow “speak for itself”. It never does. If reviewers and editors need 20 minutes to guess what is new about your paper, they will almost always conclude: “Lack of novelty. Reject.” Here is a simple structure you can use to fix this in your next manuscript: 1. One-sentence contribution (yes, just one) If you cannot explain your contribution in one sentence, the reviewer will not do it for you. Ask yourself: “What does this paper do that no published paper has already done?” Write that sentence. Put a version of it in the abstract and in the last paragraph of the introduction. 2. Make the gap painfully clear Don’t write: “Few studies have examined X.” Write something like: What we think we know. What we don’t know (exactly what is missing, wrong, or unclear). Why this gap is a problem for the field. If the gap is vague, your contribution will look vague. 3. Name the type of novelty Most early-career researchers actually have one of these: Contextual: Testing known theory in a new context or population. Methodological: Using a new data source or technique that reveals what others could not see. Conceptual: Clarifying, extending, or slightly challenging an existing idea. Say which one you are doing and show how. 4. Use contribution language, not “what we did” language Weak: “We analyzed 500 surveys and ran regressions.” Stronger: “We show that the X–Y relationship reverses in setting Z, which existing theory does not predict. This refines how we understand X in volatile environments.” Same work. Different framing. Completely different response from reviewers. 5. Echo the novelty again in the Discussion The Discussion is not just “here are the results again”. It is where you say, clearly: What changes for the field because of your findings. Which assumptions need updating. Where the next person should pick up the conversation. If your final section could have been written before you ran the study, you are not explaining novelty. Your research can be novel, but invisible. Your job is to make the originality impossible to miss. #science #research #scientist #publishing #academia #professor #highereducation #researchservices #novelty #thesis #phd

Massive cuts to U.S. research funding are hitting PhD students hard—here’s what you need to know / can do about it. Context: A few days, I wrote about how cuts in federal research grants has led to layoffs, hiring freezes, and rescinded PhD offers. The situation hasn't improved. In fact, more students are coming forward with the same story now. Besides The Johns Hopkins University and UMass Chan Medical School, more unis have been impacted. → Columbia University, my alma mater, is facing threats of a $400M funding cut from the Trump administration unless they respond to acuses of anti-semitism. → University of Pennsylvania just announced a hiring freeze and is reviewing capital spending due to uncertainty in federal research grants. → Duke University has already had to halt multiple NIH-funded research projects due to budget reductions. This is happening across the board. It’s NOT your fault. And you’re not alone. 🚨 First, check your funding status. If you’ve received an offer, confirm with your department that your funding is secure. Note that an "acceptance" letter is not = "funding" guaranteed. Some students are finding out last-minute that their funding disappeared. 🚨 Second, some universities are offering deferrals. Some PhD programs are allowing students to defer by a year in hopes that the situation stabilizes. If you’re affected, ask if this is an option. 🚨 Third, get in touch with others like you. The r/gradadmissions reddit page is a great place to start. If nothing, you'll be able to meet people who can empathize with your situation and give you a chance to vent out the frustration (like the image below). 🚨 Finally, check for outside scholarships. I got two scholarships for pursuing my master's at Columbia University that offset some of the cost. Here's a list of 30+ scholarships I created back then: https://lnkd.in/gmn9ztxj  Many of them also fund PhD programs. Hope it helps you. The U.S. has long been the global leader in innovation. These cuts will make it harder for the country to attract and retain top research talent. Sad to see this status quo. 🎁 If it helps, here's a list of 30+ scholarships I created that fund higher education programs: https://lnkd.in/gmn9ztxj

Applying to every scholarship but still getting rejected? The issue isn’t your qualifications; it’s how you present them! Here’s a detailed guide to building a strong scholarship application:👇 📌 Have a “Hero’s Journey” in Your Essay Most applicants say they're hard-working and passionate. Instead, tell a before-and-after story. What was the challenge you faced, what did you learn, and how did you apply it? 📌 Show Depth, Not Just Breadth in Extracurriculars Scholarship committees prefer someone who has mastered one field over someone who has done 20 random activities. ✅ Example: Instead of joining 10 clubs, be the founder of one impactful project (e.g., starting a mentorship program for underprivileged students). 📌 Use Cold Emails to Secure Research Experience Professors love students who show initiative. Cold email 20+ professors in your field asking for a virtual research assistant position. If even 1 says yes, it adds massive credibility to your profile. 💡Pro Tip: In your essay, write about how you contributed to real-world research instead of just stating your interest. 📌 Choose Recommendation Writers Strategically Many students pick their favourite teacher for recommendations. Instead, choose someone who has seen you grow or who is known in your field. 📌 "Connect the Dots" in Your Essay Every experience in your essay should lead to the next. Scholarship committees love cohesion. Everything should build up to why you need this scholarship and what you’ll do with it. 📌 Apply for Leadership-Based Scholarships Most students apply for academic-based scholarships, making them highly competitive. Instead, apply for leadership-focused scholarships (like Chevening, Schwarzman Scholars) if you have leadership roles in clubs, NGOs, or startups. 📌 Make the “Why This University” Answer Specific This is where most applicants fail. Instead of generic lines like “This university has a great reputation,” say: ✅ “Professor X’s research on renewable energy aligns with my goal of implementing solar grids in rural India.” ✅ “The university’s [specific lab] will help me prototype my AI-driven mental health chatbot.” 📌 Leverage LinkedIn & Twitter for Networking Many scholarships (like Fulbright) consider networking and recommendations. Follow alumni from your dream scholarship on LinkedIn and comment on their posts, ask for advice, and get insider tips. Remember, scholarships don’t go to the ‘best’ students. They go to students who know how to sell their story! All the best! ❤️