Review Feedback and Resubmitting

Interpreting Your Feedback

For limited submissions we tend to see similar comments from reviewers. Here are common types of comments you might receive and how you might move forward:

• Positive Reviews- if the reviews are mostly positive, it may be that other proposals simply scored higher overall. In this case, the good news is that reviewers didn’t identify any major weaknesses, but the bad news is that you will have less to go on in resubmitting this in the future, or repackaging your concept for other opportunities. In these instances, you can still look to improve the clarity of how you describe your research, the need for it, the approach and team pursuing it, etc. 

• Fit to Opportunity- if the feedback questions how good of a fit your submission is for the opportunity, it may be helpful to review the sponsor’s mission and the RFA again. It may be the case that you need to more effectively articulate how your concept fits the call. Or, you may need to find another funding opportunity that is more aligned to your idea, or you may need to move on to a different idea. Keep an eye out for other opportunities to seek funding for the project or for individual components of the proposal. 

• Expertise & Collaborators- were the reviewers not convinced that you have the expertise to accomplish the project? You may not have included enough information about your expertise, track record, or your collaborators. It could lend strength to the proposal to generate more publications on the topic. Or it could be an opportunity to seek a new collaborator with specific expertise to fill a gap. It may also be helpful to include information about access to equipment, facilities, and any other resource the team will need. 

• Achievable Aims- were the reviewers not convinced that you would successfully accomplish the aims? Although the campus application has limited space, including a section to discuss common pitfalls and contingency plans is often helpful. Be sure to explain your selected methods and include a rationale for why other methods are not used.

• Questionable Risk- did the reviewers comment that the concept does not seem to be sufficiently “high risk, high reward” for the call? It helps to make the case for how your project fits the sponsor’s preferences for risk and significance. For some programs, it also helps to be clear why other sponsors wouldn’t fund (or haven’t funded) the concept.

• Feasability- on the other hand, sometimes reviewers comment that the plan is too ambitious. Your proposal should balance impact and feasibility. You could propose/complete a pilot to demonstrate feasibility before resubmission. Limit the number of aims and make sure they are specific and fit the scope of the funding. Consider if the project can be broken into smaller pieces. Sometimes reviewers might really be questioning whether the project can be done within the proposed budget. Justify the budget request and match expenses to the scope of the project.

• Missing the Big Picture- if the reviewers seem to have missed the big picture or key ideas, you may need to be more explicit and tell your story more clearly. When writing, be aware of your audience, often reviewers are in a related discipline but are not experts in the exact topic of your proposal, so it might help to rewrite the submission with less jargon and additional background and significance. Being clear can also include restructuring the story to be more clear up front. Often a top-down narrative structure (starting with what you're proposing to do) is more clear than a bottom-up structure. 

Revising and Resubmitting

If you decide to resubmit to the next cycle, you will often have several months to further develop your project, address weaknesses identified by reviewers, and get more preliminary data so your next submission is set up to be stronger than your first. It is important to note that a resubmitted application to our campus limited submission process will likely not be reviewed by the same reviewers in the next cycle. A new review committee may or may not agree with the prior committee, it may address new concerns not raised by the original committee, or they may have different perspectives about what is a fundable project under the program guidelines (which may have been updated in the meantime). And, because the resubmission is usually several months to a year later, advances made in the field between the two submissions may also have an impact on the reviews. 

Regardless of how positive or negative your review scores are, resubmission provides an opportunity for the PI to fine tune the proposal, emphasize strengths, address concerns, and revise the text to include more relevant detail.