Good for you!<\/p>\n
Let me help you out!<\/p>\n
In my four-and-a-bit years as a grant wrangler, I’ve applied to a bewildering array<\/a> of Canadian and international government and charitable funding agencies. Every organisation has their own system (some even have different systems for different grant mechanisms), each with its strengths and weaknesses – I won’t name names, but anyone in the same business as me will have their own favourite and least favourite systems!<\/p>\n For your viewing and\/or schadenfreude-related pleasure, I’ve therefore put together a helpful* list of good, bad, and “meh” practices for each of the major components of a grant submission. Please add your own in the comments!<\/p>\n (NB I originally tried to to this by making an elegantly formatted table and uploading it via Flickr, but the image quality wasn’t good enough. Still available here<\/a> if anyone’s interested, or I can email you the PDF if you’re really interested!).<\/p>\n FORMAT<\/strong><\/p>\n Bad: Paper. I mean, really. (Last time encountered: 2010, FFS); Meh: Email attachments. PDFs almost acceptable; anything else, not so much.<\/p>\n Best: Online only.<\/p>\n CONTACT INFO<\/strong> (PI, co-applicant, suggested \/ excluded reviewer etc)<\/strong><\/p>\n Bad: Failure to recognise phone number if input in wrong format (e.g. (555) 555 5555 instead of 555-555-5555 \u2013 the horror!); Best: Auto-populates upon pasting in the person\u2019s email address \/ system login name \/ agency PIN.<\/p>\n CV<\/strong><\/p>\n Bad: Uses a completely unique format; Meh: Uses a standard format, e.g. NIH Biosketch style.<\/p>\n Best: (If Canadian): uses Common CV<\/a> (online system that lets you enter all CV info in a standard format and will then generate the correctly formatted CV for any member organisation); DETAILS & ABSTRACTS OF OTHER CURRENT AND SUBMITTED GRANTS<\/strong> (to assess overlap with current proposal)<\/strong><\/p>\n Bad: Details for each grant must be completed individually via an online form; Meh: Full, detailed list required, but can be done in Word and attached as a single PDF; Best: Just don\u2019t ask for it. Several major funding agencies get by just fine without it, you know.<\/p>\n BUDGET<\/strong><\/p>\n Bad: Form only shows one year \/ one line item at a time; Best: Form shows all line items for all years, allowing applicant to easily check against an Excel spreadsheet; PROPOSAL \/ OTHER LARGE TEXT SECTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n Bad: Entered into text box, meaning that it has to be carefully and repeatedly checked and re-checked for formatting, non-standard characters, and to make sure headers aren\u2019t separated from associated text etc. (Last encountered: today).<\/p>\n Meh: There is no middle ground. Text box EVIL<\/strong><\/em>, attachment AWESOME<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n Best: Attached as PDF.<\/p>\n INSTITUTIONAL SIGN-OFF<\/strong><\/p>\n Bad: Anything involving envelopes and stamps \/ Fed-Ex accounts.<\/p>\n Meh: Online after applicant submits the grant, forcing local office of research facilitation to impose crazily early internal deadlines but then still resulting in a mad crazy deadline panic that is out of applicants\u2019 hands due to volume of applications.<\/p>\n Best: Applicant uploads scanned signed form to online application in their own time and is then solely responsible for submitting by the one and only grant deadline.<\/p>\n APPLICATION VALIDATION \/ PREVIEW<\/strong><\/p>\n Bad: No validation check or preview.<\/p>\n Meh: Omissions \/ mistakes trigger a warning, but no details are given.<\/p>\n Best: Clear description of what\u2019s missing \/ wrong and how to fix it.<\/p>\n FINAL APPLICATION FILE (generated by system for applicants’ records; usually emailed to co-applicants by the main PI or their wrangler)<\/strong><\/p>\n Bad: Not a PDF; Meh: Complete, but boring stuff up front, e.g. CVs, list of other current and submitted grants etc. Yes, I have seen this kind of thing placed before the grant\u2019s abstract, proposal, and budget; Best: Each section starts on a new page; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n *well, I found it helpful anyway. I needed a good venting session and online grant submission forms are an easy target.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Good for you! Let me help you out! In my four-and-a-bit years as a grant wrangler, I’ve applied to a bewildering array of Canadian and international government and charitable funding agencies. Every organisation has their own system (some even have … Continue reading
\nCDs are almost as bad (not encountered since 2008, thankfully).<\/p>\n
\nFailure to recognise email address if a space accidentally got typed after it (happened to me yesterday, resulting in an unspecified “section incomplete” error that took 20 minutes to identify and fix);
\nFax number<\/a> as required field, especially for excluded reviewers (often not listed on PIs\u2019 websites: no possible way to ask them for it!).<\/p>\n
\nRequires non-standard extras, e.g. grant # for each current & submitted grant, or the impact factor \/ reason for choice of journal \/ detailed description of applicant\u2019s role for every paper.<\/p>\n
\n(If foreign): Any format acceptable, as long as it includes [reasonable list of normal CV features].<\/p>\n
\nEvery abstract has to be attached separately.<\/p>\n
\nNot required unless there actually is an overlap to declare;
\nNot required unless funded.<\/p>\n
\nSeparate justification text required for each line item \/ category of items.<\/p>\n
\nLine item and annual totals calculated and displayed as you go;
\nBudget justification attached as single PDF.<\/p>\n
\nIncomplete \u2013 e.g. doesn\u2019t include figures or proposal (last encountered: last month);
\nFugly thing with no spaces between sections, so sections start in the middle of a page (ditto).<\/p>\n
\nNo table of contents or hyperlinks to specific sections.<\/p>\n
\nIndex available with hyperlinks to each section and attachment;
\nMost important info up front (applicants, review panels, abstract, proposal, references, figures, budget, THEN the boring stuff)<\/p>\n