Flip the Script: Think Like a Reviewer

I've noticed that our more seasoned faculty researchers all seem to share one recommendation for early career investigators, and that is to serve on a review panel. This can be a bit tricky for very new investigators as some agencies prefer to have previous grant awardees on their review panels. If you are a bit green to be selected as a reviewer, volunteering to be a reviewer can give you another good reason to reach out to a Program Officer to introduce yourself and offer your service.

In the meantime, it can be a worthwhile exercise to practice thinking like a reviewer to get some insight into their experience and what they're looking for. Use the following questions to get started:

What excites you?
In your field, what would you be looking for in the next great project? And, where would you expect to find that information in a grant? Hint: You'd want the exciting stuff right upfront!

What makes a grant clear and easy to read?
Think about any grants or other technical documents you've seen in your field. In the ones that were clear and useful, what did the author(s) do? Was there a clear abstract or some sort of orientation to the document? Were the headings clear and consistent? Were the sentences straightforward and in active voice? All of these things can make a grant much easier to read and clearer!

What annoys you?
On the flipside, think of a grant or document that was terrible to read and perhaps irksome. Maybe this was a student paper or a report. But, why was it so annoying? Did they leave out key information when you needed it? Were things hard to find? Did you have to read two pages before you understood what the author was getting at? All of these can make a grant hard to read, as well as give you a negative perspective toward the PI.

What flaws would you look for/expect?
As a researcher in your field, what are the givens and inexcusable problems that you would make sure were not in a grant that you endorsed? What things about the PI would sway you one way or another? What experience should they have? How many pubs should they have? Of course, no one is a master at everything, so it's important to have collaborators for the areas in which you are weaker.

What would it take for you to advocate for a PI and their grant?
Going back to the first question, and considering the rest, what would it really take for you to put your reputation on the line to advocate for a PI and their grant? What would be exciting enough and what would make the project solid enough that you would want to build a case for that person and argue it with your colleagues?

Considering these questions and the experience of the reviewer can give you a new angle to consider for your grant. Are you capitalizing on what reviewers would see as strengths? Are you avoiding things that might drive them nuts? How can you easily convey the power and urgency of your project so that they are compelled to join you by advocating for your project?

Resources:
Learning from Peer Review - The Scientist
What do Grant Reviewers Really Want Anyway? - Robert Porter