Dr. Lani (Chi Chi) Zimmerman, UNMC Dr . Bill Mahoney, IS&T Dr . Matt Germonprez , IS&T Dr . Mahadevan Subra

1. The Proposal Review Process: An Insider’s Look at Federal Review Panels Panel consisting of faculty from UNO and UNMC who have served on review panels • Dr. Lani (Chi Chi) Zimmerman, UNMC • Dr. Bill Mahoney, IS&T • Dr. Matt Germonprez, IS&T • Dr. MahadevanSubramaniam, IS&T

2. Create a checklist • The organizations that offer grants usually publish a lengthy set of rules and guidelines for grant submission and that is what you need to review very carefully before any attempt at writing a grant. • Read the entire application carefully. • Make a list of questions you must answer and materials that have to be included. • See what buzz words they are using and how they have defined them.

3. Don’t sound technical. • The best grant proposals are clear, concise, and understandable. • Use good solid English, easily understood by an average person. • Avoid getting too intellectual or too technical in your writing.

4. Pay attention to detail. • Having the assistance of a good editor to review your work with a trained eye will improve your writing tremendously.

5. Write a compelling story. • Use images that are very dramatic and show the problems you are going to solve. • You want to make the reader feel like they are right in the middle of the situation, so that they can imagine what it must be like.

6. Pretend you’re the funder • (a) the organizations that received funding have many years of experience in the areas of concern, • (b) the proposals are professionally presented, • (c) the cause is clearly identified, • (d) the parameters of need are expressed clearly, and • (e) there is evidence of past success.

7. Find a good mentor or grant writing coach • Grant writing, whether it is for yourself or for others requires a seasoned professional skill set in order to prepare grants that are award winning. • A mentor is someone who is very talented in grant writing that guides you and helps you improve your skills.

8. Become great at researching funding sources • There are international sources, national sources, regional sources and local sources for grant funding. • Some of the easier grants to get are the smaller ones for local purposes. • There are also grants available for a variety of distinct causes from foundations that have been set up specifically to support such grants. • The U.S. government is also a major source.

9. Target a specific project for your proposal • The majority of all grants, given for projects that help people, are given to specific cause instead of just general support. • By focusing your grant proposal you will increase your chances of getting funded.

10. NIHOverall Impact. • Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

11. Significance. • Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

12. Investigator(s). • Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

13. Innovation. • Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

14. Approach. • Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

15. Environment. • Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

16. Additional Review Criteria. As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit and in providing an overall impact/priority score, but will not give separate scores for these items. • Protections for Human Subjects • Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children • Vertebrate Animals • Biohazards • Resubmission • Renewal • Revision