We recently reviewed our success rates with F32 applications. We are proud to report a higher than 50% success rate in the past decade. Upon review of the recent critiques of the F32 submitted from our program, we would like to bring your attention to important items to include in your grant prior to resubmission

1.  To address potential critiques that applicants had limited or no publications in general and in their proposed research area in particular.

• Applicant: Highlight past research experiences that led to tangible outputs, even if not in the form of publications and discuss plans for future publications.
• Applicant: Consider writing/contributing to review articles, invited editorials, or commentary pieces to demonstrate expertise in your research field.
• Mentor: Mention in the training plan that work on the specific project had just started and therefore a manuscript is likely to follow the completion of the work proposed; highlight how previous publications, even in distinct areas demonstrate scientific writing skills, productivity, and understanding of concepts pertinent to the current application.

2.  To address potential critiques that the research plan is overambitious or lacks feasibility within the proposed timeframe:

• Justify sample size with appropriate power calculations. Provide preliminary data of study population (numbers, access, etc.)
• Clearly articulate recruitment strategies to demonstrate feasibility in obtaining patient samples.
• Outline contingency plans in case data collection challenges arise.
• Ensure statistical methods align with study design and research questions.
• Provide a clear and detailed timeline of the experiments that aligns with the budget period requested.

2.  To address potential critiques that training plan does not specify future academic career milestones that are directly related to the proposed training:

• Mentor and applicant: Define how the proposed training will advance the applicant independence as a researcher (stating path to a manuscript in a top specialty journal; then KO8/K23; then RO1).
• Mentor: Outline when and how you envision that the applicant’s research will evolve into a focus that will be distinct from that of the mentor’s.
• Mentor: If including advanced methodologies, provide a strong rationale and evidence of prior experience or a structured plan for training in these techniques.

4.  To address potential critiques that the mentor may not have sufficient funding for proposed training

• Mentor: Consider adding additional co-mentors with expertise in specific methodological areas and provide statement/letter that this co-mentor will commit the additional funding needed.
• Address clearly how funding will be provided to the project, including any intramural/institutional support

5.  To address methodological weaknesses

• Ensure study design accounts for confounding variables and alternative hypotheses.
• Justify the inclusion (or exclusion) of sex as a biological variable.
• Clearly describe efforts to minimize bias in data collection and analysis.
• Provide a detailed statistical analysis plan.
• Make sure to add a section on anticipated results and alternative approaches.

Other grant writing tips

• Ensure the Aims page is clear, concise, and logically structured.
• Avoid vague language; be specific in describing methodologies.
• Ensure consistency across all sections (e.g., timeline, budget, and research plan should align).
• Address any potential concerns about overlapping funding sources.
• Outline institutional resources available to support research and career development, including financial support, protected time, other resources to support research