By Meg Bouvier, PhD, and Agnella Izzo Matic, PhD, CMPP
Most researchers make the mistake of writing a scientific manuscript and a grant application in exactly the same manner. That is a mistake because they are reviewed entirely differently.
Basics of NIH Grant Application Review
An NIH grant application is first read carefully by ~3 assigned reviewers ahead of the study section meeting. Based on that initial review, the top half of applications will advance to the full study section meeting. At the meeting (primary review; score awarded), the assigned reviewers skim the application to jog their memory (they will have read a stack of applications.) The rest of the ~30 study section members only ever skim the application at the meeting – but the entire panel votes on the score. For those with promising scores who advance to the Council meeting (secondary review; funding decision made), POs present the application and the entire Council panel votes on a funding recommendation.
Basics of Scientific Manuscript Review
A scientific manuscript is read first by someone in the editorial office, who decides if it is an appropriate and impactful topic for their journal to publish. This person is often not reviewing the manuscript with a detailed scientific eye, and they may only look at the abstract. There may be a second person in the editorial office who reads the manuscript with a bit more scientific scrutiny. Then, if the manuscript passes the editorial office, it is off to multiple peer reviewers, who (should) perform a thorough review of the manuscript – from the top to the bottom, including the scientific rationale, background literature cited, methodology, data (does it check out?), and the commentary. These reviewers may request changes to the scientific manuscript and re-review the content to see if enough changes have been made to satisfy their original critiques. The peer reviewers make a recommendation to the editorial office for whether they should publish the paper and how novel and impactful the research is. The journal editor(s) ultimately make the Y/N decision on whether to publish.
NIH grant applications and scientific manuscripts are reviewed differently – The details
| Scientific Manuscript Review | NIH Grant Application Review |
| Can often get culled by editorial staff (not even Editor in Chief) after only having read abstracts and skimmed other content | Initial review by 3 assigned reviewers (likely) with expertise in topic |
| 2-4 peer reviewers | 3 assigned reviewers perform initial review; then study section (~30 people) awards score to top half |
| Read thoroughly | Skimmed at study section meeting |
| Read in its entirety | Text is often skipped, especially by non-assigned reviewers |
| Read from beginning to end, usually | Skimmed out of order |
| A few individuals make recommendations, ultimately one editor usually makes decision to publish (or not) | Entire study section votes on score, then entire Council panel votes on funding |
| Individual peer reviewers write comments | Group discusses and votes, written comments should reflect discussion among group |
| Review timeframe is variable, 1 month to 6+ months (during COVID especially) | Often takes ~ 9 months or more to get funding decision |
| Reviewer chooses time/place to sit quietly and read | Reviewers must attend review meetings at a set time/place |
| Introduction of manuscript should start broader and assume a lower level of prior knowledge in the topic | Reviewers (esp. assigned reviewers) may have more expertise in topic, so you can assume a higher level of prior knowledge in your writing |
| Reviewers may request revisions | If not funded, you may revise and resubmit |
Suggestions for writing toward different review processes
| Scientific Manuscript Writing | NIH Grant Application Writing |
| Abstract will be first piece read, must make strong and coherent impression | Specific Aims is first piece read, must be strong and coherent |
| Build facts to a logical conclusion | Place the conclusion at the beginning, like a newspaper headline, because application is skimmed. |
| Use the headers suggested in the submission instructions, then write narrative below those headers. | Choose headers that match scoring criteria. To facilitate skimming, use an outline. Justify it to the left margin. Line tables and figures up on the right margin so that they do not disrupt the outline. |
| Use the format in the journal instructions. | Format judiciously (bold, underline, shading) to facilitate skimming. Create a formatting strategy and use it consistently. |
| Methods section maybe the least read section (relative to rest of paper), unless it’s being read by another researcher in your specific field | Description of proposed methods, including rigor, of paramount importance |
| Suggest you tackle writing each section in this order: Results, Methods, Discussion, Introduction | Suggest you begin with Specific Aims page, and only proceed with writing Research Strategy after thoroughly vetting with colleagues, mentors, POs, and platforms like RePORTER and CSR ART |