zhongwei/gh-k-dense-ai-claude-scientific-writer
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
master
gh-k-dense-ai-claude-scient…/skills/venue-templates/references/grants_requirements.md
Zhongwei Li 1dd5bee3b4 Initial commit
2025-11-30 08:30:14 +08:00

22 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

Grant Proposal Requirements

Comprehensive requirements and formatting guidelines for major federal and private foundation grant programs.

Last Updated: 2024

NSF (National Science Foundation)

Overview

Agency: National Science Foundation
Typical Award: $100K-$500K per year, 3-5 years
Success Rate: 20-25% (varies by program)
Review Criteria: Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts (equally weighted)

NSF Standard Grant Proposal

Page Limits (NSF PAPPG - Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide):

Component Page Limit Font Spacing
Project Summary 1 page Any readable, 10pt+ Any
Project Description 15 pages Times Roman 11pt or similar Single
References Cited No limit Times Roman 11pt Single
Biographical Sketch 3 pages per person Times Roman 11pt Single
Budget Justification 3-5 pages Any readable Any
Current & Pending Support No limit Times Roman 11pt Single
Facilities, Equipment 2 pages Any readable Any
Data Management Plan 2 pages Any readable Any

Margins: 1 inch (2.54 cm) on all sides (strictly enforced)

NSF Project Summary (1 page)

Required Sections (clearly labeled):

  1. Overview (1-2 paragraphs)

    • Concise description of research activity
    • Objectives and methods

  2. Intellectual Merit (1 paragraph)

    • How project advances knowledge
    • Innovation and transformative potential
    • Qualifications of research team

  3. Broader Impacts (1 paragraph)

    • Benefits to society
    • Broadening participation
    • Dissemination and outreach

Format: Can be full-page text or sectioned
Audience: Non-specialists (broad scientific community)

Template: assets/grants/nsf_project_summary.tex

NSF Project Description (15 pages)

Typical Structure:

  1. Introduction/Background (2-3 pages)

    • Current state of knowledge
    • Research gap
    • Preliminary work/feasibility
    • Team qualifications

  2. Research Plan (8-10 pages)

    • Objectives and hypotheses
    • Methods and approach
    • Timeline and milestones
    • Expected outcomes

  3. Broader Impacts (1-2 pages)

    • Educational activities
    • Broadening participation (underrepresented groups)
    • Dissemination (publications, conferences, public outreach)
    • Societal benefits

  4. Results from Prior NSF Support (1 page, if applicable)

    • Required if PI has had NSF support in past 5 years
    • Intellectual merit and broader impacts of prior work
    • Publications from prior NSF grants

Key Requirements:

  • Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts integrated throughout
  • Figures and tables allowed (count toward page limit)
  • Citations to references (use References Cited section)

Template: assets/grants/nsf_proposal_template.tex

NSF Biographical Sketch (3 pages)

Required Sections:

  1. Professional Preparation: Institutions, degrees, fields
  2. Appointments: Current and previous positions
  3. Products: Up to 5 most relevant, up to 5 other significant products
    • Can include publications, datasets, software, patents
  4. Synergistic Activities: Up to 5 examples of impact beyond research

Format:

  • NSF template must be used (SciENcv or NSF-approved format)
  • No longer uses "Publications" but "Products"

NSF Broader Impacts

NSF-Recognized Categories (demonstrate ≥1):

  1. Advance discovery while promoting teaching/learning
  2. Broaden participation of underrepresented groups
  3. Disseminate broadly to enhance scientific/technological understanding
  4. Benefits to society (economic, health, environment, national security)
  5. Develop scientific workforce and infrastructure

Best Practices:

  • Be specific with measurable outcomes
  • Explain how activities will be assessed
  • Integrate with research (don't treat as "add-on")
  • Budget for broader impacts activities

Examples:

  • K-12 outreach programs
  • Curriculum development
  • Training underrepresented students
  • Public science communication
  • Open-source software development

NSF Budget

Typical Categories:

  • Senior Personnel: PI, co-PIs (% effort, salary)
  • Other Personnel: Postdocs, graduate students, undergrads
  • Fringe Benefits: Institutional rates
  • Equipment: Items >$5,000
  • Travel: Domestic and foreign
  • Participant Support: Workshops, conferences (separate category)
  • Other Direct Costs: Materials, publication, subawards
  • Indirect Costs: Institutional F&A rate

Budget Justification: Explain need for each item

NSF Data Management Plan (2 pages)

Required Content:

  • Types of data produced
  • Standards for data format and metadata
  • Policies for access and sharing
  • Policies for re-use and redistribution
  • Plans for archiving and preservation

Acceptable Approaches:

  • Deposit in domain-specific repository
  • Institutional repository
  • Data available upon request (with restrictions justification)

NSF Review Process

Review Criteria (equally weighted):

  1. Intellectual Merit:

    • What is the potential to advance knowledge?
    • How well-conceived and organized?
    • Qualifications of PI and team?
    • Availability of resources?

  2. Broader Impacts:

    • What are the potential benefits to society?
    • How well-suited to achieve broader impacts?

Panel Review: Proposals reviewed by panel of experts
Timeline: Typically 6 months from deadline to award decision

NSF LaTeX Templates

  • Full Proposal: assets/grants/nsf_proposal_template.tex
  • Project Summary: assets/grants/nsf_project_summary.tex
  • Biographical Sketch: Use NSF SciENcv or template

Resources:

NIH (National Institutes of Health)

Overview

Agency: National Institutes of Health
Funding Mechanisms:

  • R01: Research Project Grant (most common)
  • R21: Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant
  • K Awards: Career Development Awards Success Rate: 10-20% (varies by institute and mechanism)

NIH R01 Research Grant

Page Limits (Research Strategy):

Component Page Limit Font Spacing
Specific Aims 1 page Arial 11pt minimum Any
Research Strategy 12 pages Arial 11pt minimum 0.5 inch margins minimum
- Significance Part of 12
- Innovation Part of 12
- Approach Part of 12
Bibliography No limit Arial 11pt
Biographical Sketch 5 pages per person Arial 11pt

Margins: 0.5 inch minimum (all sides)
Paper Size: Letter (8.5 × 11 inches)

NIH Specific Aims Page (1 page)

THE MOST CRITICAL COMPONENT

Structure (recommended):

  1. Opening paragraph (2-3 sentences)

    • Hook: Significance of problem
    • Gap: What's not known

  2. Long-term goal (1 sentence)

    • Overarching research vision

  3. Objective (1-2 sentences)

    • What this proposal will accomplish
    • Central hypothesis

  4. Rationale (2-3 sentences)

    • Why you expect success
    • Preliminary data supporting hypothesis

  5. Specific Aims (3 aims typical)

    • Aim 1: [Title]. [1-2 sentence description. Working hypothesis. Expected outcome.]
    • Aim 2: [Title]. [1-2 sentence description. Working hypothesis. Expected outcome.]
    • Aim 3: [Title]. [1-2 sentence description. Working hypothesis. Expected outcome.]

  6. Payoff paragraph (2-3 sentences)

    • Impact and significance
    • Innovation
    • Future directions

Best Practices:

  • Crystal clear, compelling narrative
  • State hypothesis explicitly
  • Explain expected outcomes
  • Show innovation and impact

Template: assets/grants/nih_specific_aims.tex

NIH Research Strategy (12 pages)

Required Sections:

1. Significance (typically 2-3 pages)

  • Importance: Critical barrier to progress
  • Knowledge gap: What's not known
  • Impact: How project advances field
  • Rigor: Scientific premise/prior work
  • References: Cite key literature

2. Innovation (typically 1-2 pages)

  • Novelty: New concepts, approaches, methods
  • Challenge paradigms: Shift thinking
  • Refined/new methodologies: Technical innovation
  • Novel applications: Existing tools in new ways

3. Approach (typically 7-9 pages)

For Each Aim:

  • Rationale: Why this aim
  • Experimental design: Detailed methods
  • Expected outcomes: What results mean
  • Potential problems & alternatives: Mitigation strategies
  • Rigor and reproducibility: Controls, replication, statistics
  • Timeline: When each aim completed

Additional Approach Content:

  • Preliminary data (critical for R01)
  • Power analyses for sample sizes
  • Statistical analysis plans
  • Rigor of prior research cited

NIH Biographical Sketch (5 pages)

Sections (NIH format):

  1. Personal Statement (4 sentences explaining why you're suited)
  2. Positions, Honors, and Scientific Appointments
  3. Contributions to Science (Up to 5 contributions, up to 4 pubs each)
  4. Research Support (current and completed grants, overlap checked)

Format: Must use NIH template (fillable PDF or format page)

NIH Review Criteria

Scored Criteria (1-9 scale, 1=best):

  1. Significance: Importance, impact
  2. Investigator(s): Qualifications, track record
  3. Innovation: Novel concepts, methods
  4. Approach: Feasibility, rigor, design
  5. Environment: Institutional support, resources

Additional Considerations (not scored but noted):

  • Vertebrate animals
  • Biohazards
  • Human subjects protections
  • Inclusion of women, minorities, children
  • Budget appropriateness

Overall Impact Score: 1-9 (synthesizes all criteria)

NIH R21 (Exploratory Grant)

Key Differences from R01:

  • Research Strategy: 6 pages (vs. 12 for R01)
  • Duration: 2 years maximum
  • Budget: $275K total costs over 2 years
  • Preliminary data: Not required (exploratory nature)
  • Purpose: High-risk, high-reward projects; new directions

When to Choose R21 vs. R01:

  • R21: Early-stage, limited preliminary data, high-risk
  • R01: Established line of research, strong preliminary data

NIH K Awards (Career Development)

Mechanisms:

  • K01: Mentored Research Scientist Development Award
  • K08: Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development Award
  • K23: Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award
  • K99/R00: Pathway to Independence Award (postdoc to faculty)

Key Components:

  • Career Development Plan: Training goals, timeline
  • Research Plan: 6-12 pages (mechanism-dependent)
  • Mentor(s): Letters of support, mentoring plan
  • Institutional Commitment: Environment, resources
  • Protected Time: 75% research effort typical

NIH Budget

Modular vs. Detailed:

  • Modular: ≤$250K direct costs per year (25K increments)
  • Detailed: >$250K direct costs per year

Modular Budget: Only need budget justification for personnel, consortium, equipment >$25K

Budget Period: Year-by-year (usually 5 years for R01)

NIH LaTeX Templates

  • R01 Full Proposal: assets/grants/nih_r01_template.tex
  • Specific Aims: assets/grants/nih_specific_aims.tex
  • Biographical Sketch: Use NIH fillable PDF or format page

Resources:

DOE (Department of Energy)

Overview

Agency: U.S. Department of Energy
Offices:

  • Office of Science: Basic research (BES, BER, ASCR, NP, HEP, FES)
  • ARPA-E: High-risk, high-reward energy technologies
  • EERE: Energy efficiency and renewable energy

Typical Award: $200K-$1M per year, 3 years
Success Rate: 10-30% (varies by program)

DOE Office of Science Proposal

Page Limits (typical, varies by FOA):

Component Page Limit Format
Project Narrative 10-20 pages Times 11pt, 1" margins
References No limit
Budget Justification 3-5 pages
Biographical Sketches 2-3 pages each
Current & Pending No limit
Facilities & Resources No limit
Data Management Plan 2 pages

DOE Project Narrative Structure

Typical Sections:

  1. Background and Significance (2-3 pages)

    • Energy relevance
    • Current state of knowledge
    • Research need

  2. Preliminary Work (1-2 pages)

    • Team's qualifications
    • Relevant prior results

  3. Research Plan (10-15 pages)

    • Objectives: Clear goals
    • Technical approach: Detailed methods
    • Milestones and deliverables: Specific, measurable
    • Timeline: Gantt chart common
    • Team and management: Roles, collaboration

  4. Broader Impacts (1-2 pages)

    • Workforce development
    • Technology transfer potential
    • Publications and dissemination

DOE-Specific Requirements

Energy Relevance: Must clearly tie to DOE mission

  • Basic science: Fundamental understanding for energy applications
  • Applied: Energy efficiency, renewable energy, grid, storage

Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs): Often required to specify

  • TRL 1-3: Basic research, proof of concept
  • TRL 4-6: Component/subsystem validation
  • TRL 7-9: System demonstration, deployment

National Laboratory Collaboration: Encouraged

  • Include lab scientists as co-PIs or collaborators
  • Letter of collaboration from lab

Cost Sharing: Sometimes required (check FOA)

  • Can be in-kind (equipment, time)
  • Must be documented

DOE Budget Considerations

Allowable Costs:

  • Personnel (salaries, benefits)
  • Equipment
  • Travel (especially to DOE national labs)
  • Materials and supplies
  • Subcontracts
  • Indirect costs (negotiated F&A rate)

Unallowable:

  • Construction
  • Entertainment
  • Some indirect costs (depends on institution type)

DOE LaTeX Template

Template: assets/grants/doe_proposal_template.tex

Resources:

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency)

Overview

Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DoD)
Mission: High-risk, high-reward research for national security
Typical Award: $500K-$5M per year, 2-4 years
Success Rate: 5-15% (highly competitive)

DARPA BAA (Broad Agency Announcement) Response

Page Limits (typical, varies by BAA):

Component Page Limit Format
Technical and Management Proposal 20-25 pages Times 12pt, 1" margins
Cost Proposal Separate volume

DARPA Technical Proposal Structure

Key Sections:

  1. Executive Summary (1 page)

    • Vision and impact
    • Technical approach overview
    • Team qualifications

  2. Heilmeier Catechism (1-2 pages) DARPA requires answering these questions:

    • What are you trying to do? Articulate objectives without jargon
    • How is it done today? Limitations? Current practice and shortcomings
    • What is new in your approach? Innovation
    • Who cares? Impact if successful
    • If successful, what difference will it make? Transformation
    • What are the risks? Technical risks and mitigation
    • How much will it cost? Budget overview
    • How long will it take? Timeline
    • What are the mid-term and final exams? Milestones for success

  3. Technical Approach (10-15 pages)

    • Detailed technical plan
    • Task breakdown
    • Risk mitigation
    • Innovation justification

  4. Management Plan (2-3 pages)

    • Team organization
    • Key personnel roles
    • Collaboration approach
    • Milestone schedule (Gantt chart)

  5. Capabilities and Experience (2-3 pages)

    • Team qualifications
    • Relevant facilities and equipment
    • Similar past programs

  6. Transition Plan (1-2 pages)

    • Path to DoD transition
    • End users identified
    • Technology transfer approach

DARPA-Specific Considerations

Engagement with Program Manager (PM):

  • Strongly encouraged to contact PM before submission
  • Discuss idea alignment with program goals
  • PM can provide feedback on approach

Transformative Impact:

  • Must demonstrate potential for "game-changing" impact
  • Not incremental improvements

Technical Risk:

  • High-risk approaches acceptable (even encouraged)
  • Must show mitigation strategies

National Security Relevance:

  • Clear connection to defense applications
  • Dual-use (civilian + military) often valuable

Metrics for Success:

  • Quantifiable milestones
  • "Go/no-go" decision points

DARPA Budget

Full Cost Accounting: Detailed justification required

  • Labor: Hourly rates, hours per task
  • Materials: Itemized
  • Equipment: Justification for purchases
  • Travel: Specific trips with purpose
  • Subcontracts: Detailed subcontract budgets
  • Indirect Costs: Negotiated rates

Cost Realism: Budget must be realistic for proposed work

DARPA LaTeX Template

Template: assets/grants/darpa_baa_response.tex

Resources:

Private Foundations

Gates Foundation

Focus Areas: Global health, poverty alleviation, education
Typical Award: Varies widely ($100K to $10M+)

Proposal Requirements:

  • Letter of Inquiry (2-3 pages): Initial screening
  • Full Proposal (if invited): 10-15 pages
  • Theory of Change: How intervention leads to impact
  • Monitoring & Evaluation: Metrics, data collection

Key Emphases:

  • Scalability and sustainability
  • Impact in low-resource settings
  • Partnerships with local organizations
  • Data-driven decision making

Wellcome Trust

Focus: Biomedical research, global health
Geographic: UK and international
Typical Award: £100K to £5M

Proposal Format (varies by scheme):

  • Investigator Awards: Track record and research vision
  • Project Grants: Specific research project
  • Career Development: Early/mid-career researchers

Requirements:

  • Research plan
  • Track record
  • Value for money justification
  • Patient and public involvement

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)

Type: Investigator appointments (not grants)
Award: ~$9M over 7 years (renewable)
Focus: Biomedical research, early-career scientists

Selection:

  • Nomination by institution
  • Track record of innovation
  • Research vision for next 5-7 years
  • Scientific leadership potential

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI)

Focus: Science, education, justice & opportunity
Award Types:

  • Imaging: Advanced imaging technologies
  • Neurodegeneration Challenge: AD, ALS, PD, FTD
  • Single-Cell Biology: Tools and resources

Emphasis:

  • Open science (data sharing, open-source)
  • Collaboration across institutions
  • Technology development
  • Diversity and inclusion

Quick Reference Table

Agency Typical Award Duration Key Criteria Template
NSF $100K-500K/yr 3-5 yrs Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts nsf_proposal_template.tex
NIH R01 $250K-500K/yr 5 yrs Significance, Innovation, Approach nih_r01_template.tex
NIH R21 $275K total 2 yrs Exploratory, high-risk nih_r21_template.tex
DOE $200K-1M/yr 3 yrs Energy relevance, TRLs doe_proposal_template.tex
DARPA $500K-5M/yr 2-4 yrs Transformative, Heilmeier darpa_baa_response.tex

General Best Practices

Writing Effective Proposals

  1. Start early: 2-3 months minimum
  2. Read the call carefully: Follow requirements exactly
  3. Know your reviewers: Write for expert audience
  4. Tell a story: Compelling narrative with clear logic
  5. Be specific: Concrete objectives, methods, outcomes
  6. Show feasibility: Preliminary data, expertise
  7. Address weaknesses: Acknowledge and mitigate risks

Common Mistakes to Avoid

  1. Vague objectives: "Understand X" → "Determine whether X causes Y"
  2. Lack of innovation: Incremental vs. transformative
  3. Poor broader impacts (NSF): Generic, unintegrated
  4. Weak specific aims (NIH): Most critical page!
  5. Missing preliminary data: Show feasibility
  6. Unrealistic timeline: Be honest about what's achievable
  7. Formatting violations: Auto-rejection possible
  8. Typos and errors: Suggests lack of care

Timeline for Proposal Development

3 months before deadline:

  • Identify opportunity
  • Assemble team
  • Outline aims/objectives

2 months before:

  • Draft aims/objectives
  • Preliminary budget
  • Contact program officer (if allowed)

1 month before:

  • Full first draft
  • Internal review
  • Revise based on feedback

2 weeks before:

  • Final revisions
  • Proofread carefully
  • Assemble all documents

1 week before:

  • Institutional review/approval
  • Budget finalization
  • Submission system upload

2 days before:

  • Final check
  • Submit (don't wait until deadline!)

Resources

Grant Writing Guides

Institutional Resources

  • Office of Sponsored Research (OSR)
  • Grant writing workshops
  • Internal mock reviews
  • Budget/compliance offices

Summary

Key Takeaways:

  1. Know the agency: Different missions, different emphases
  2. Follow the rules: Page limits, fonts, margins strictly enforced
  3. Tell a compelling story: Clear problem, innovative solution, feasible plan
  4. Demonstrate impact: Intellectual merit (NSF/NIH) or mission relevance (DOE/DARPA)
  5. Show feasibility: Preliminary data, team expertise, resources
  6. Budget realistically: Justify all costs
  7. Proofread carefully: Typos undermine credibility
  8. Submit early: Technical glitches happen

Remember: Grant writing is a skill developed over time. Seek feedback, revise, and persist!

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink