How important is writing quality for the success of a grant proposal? I don't think you can get a grant proposal funded just because it is well written, but of course it helps if you can explain clearly what you want to do, why you want to do it, and how you are going to do it.
For reviewers, it's good if a proposal is written well enough that it isn't annoying to read. A proposal filled with typos and 2-page long paragraphs consisting of a multitude of unrelated points is a chore to read and makes you wonder whether the poor writing reflects something significant about how the research would be done, even if you know that there may or may not be any correlation.
I have found that it is fairly common for reviewers of my proposals to comment on the writing of the proposal. When I am reviewing a proposal, however, I tend to comment only if the proposal is extraordinarily difficult to read owing to writing problems; that is, the writing is so bad that I am not really sure what the PIs are trying to propose.
If a proposal is well written or moderately well written or not especially well written but I can still figure out what is going on, I don't tend to comment on the writing unless I can think of some specific constructive comment that might be helpful (e.g., for a new investigator). I comment on the writing of manuscripts submitted to journals, but what is relevant in a proposal review is different from what is relevant in a manuscript review.
I was thinking about this because I recently read the reviews of one of my proposals, and I noticed that 3 of 6 reviewers commented on the writing of the proposal:
The proposal is well written..
This is a well written and prepared proposal..
The proposal is not particularly well written..
Since neither of the positive comments about the writing said that the proposal was very well written, and the negative comment used the somewhat feeble description "not particularly", I am going to conclude that the writing was OK -- not great, but good enough. From the rest of the comments in those reviews, it seems that the first two liked the overall proposal anyway, and the third one found lots of little things to criticize -- nothing fatal (the grant was funded), but the reviewer clearly had some other ideas about how the research should be done. In that case, "not particularly well written" might mean "I would have written this proposal in a different way".
In another recent proposal that also led to a grant, two reviewers commented on the writing:
This proposal is very well written..
This proposal is well written..
OK, that's nice, but not relevant unless the reviewers took this into account in their overall ranking. There's no way to know if they did; see below for question about this.
But first, in the interests of bloggy pseudo-research, I need to do something unpleasant and re-read the reviews of a proposal that did not lead to a grant.. a rejected proposal. What, if anything, did reviewers say about the writing in my failed proposal?
Only one out of 6 reviewers mentioned anything about writing:
The proposal is well organized and well written..
Of course it is not possible to conclude anything from these few examples. The reviewers were likely different for each proposal, and who knows whether these reviewers make a habit of commenting on the writing.
I nevertheless stand by my rather obvious hypothesis, expressed in the first sentence of this post, that good writing won't get you a grant (if the proposed research isn't Excellent).
This leads me to some questions for readers who review proposals:
Do you factor how well written a proposal is (or isn't) into your overall proposal rating?
Do you typically mention the writing in your review? (always, never, only if the writing is notably good/bad?)
Do you think that good/bad writing could tip the scale for a proposal to be funded/not funded if the proposal is right on the very edge of the funding zone?
For reviewers, it's good if a proposal is written well enough that it isn't annoying to read. A proposal filled with typos and 2-page long paragraphs consisting of a multitude of unrelated points is a chore to read and makes you wonder whether the poor writing reflects something significant about how the research would be done, even if you know that there may or may not be any correlation.
I have found that it is fairly common for reviewers of my proposals to comment on the writing of the proposal. When I am reviewing a proposal, however, I tend to comment only if the proposal is extraordinarily difficult to read owing to writing problems; that is, the writing is so bad that I am not really sure what the PIs are trying to propose.
If a proposal is well written or moderately well written or not especially well written but I can still figure out what is going on, I don't tend to comment on the writing unless I can think of some specific constructive comment that might be helpful (e.g., for a new investigator). I comment on the writing of manuscripts submitted to journals, but what is relevant in a proposal review is different from what is relevant in a manuscript review.
I was thinking about this because I recently read the reviews of one of my proposals, and I noticed that 3 of 6 reviewers commented on the writing of the proposal:
The proposal is well written..
This is a well written and prepared proposal..
The proposal is not particularly well written..
Since neither of the positive comments about the writing said that the proposal was very well written, and the negative comment used the somewhat feeble description "not particularly", I am going to conclude that the writing was OK -- not great, but good enough. From the rest of the comments in those reviews, it seems that the first two liked the overall proposal anyway, and the third one found lots of little things to criticize -- nothing fatal (the grant was funded), but the reviewer clearly had some other ideas about how the research should be done. In that case, "not particularly well written" might mean "I would have written this proposal in a different way".
In another recent proposal that also led to a grant, two reviewers commented on the writing:
This proposal is very well written..
This proposal is well written..
OK, that's nice, but not relevant unless the reviewers took this into account in their overall ranking. There's no way to know if they did; see below for question about this.
But first, in the interests of bloggy pseudo-research, I need to do something unpleasant and re-read the reviews of a proposal that did not lead to a grant.. a rejected proposal. What, if anything, did reviewers say about the writing in my failed proposal?
Only one out of 6 reviewers mentioned anything about writing:
The proposal is well organized and well written..
Of course it is not possible to conclude anything from these few examples. The reviewers were likely different for each proposal, and who knows whether these reviewers make a habit of commenting on the writing.
I nevertheless stand by my rather obvious hypothesis, expressed in the first sentence of this post, that good writing won't get you a grant (if the proposed research isn't Excellent).
This leads me to some questions for readers who review proposals:
Do you factor how well written a proposal is (or isn't) into your overall proposal rating?
Do you typically mention the writing in your review? (always, never, only if the writing is notably good/bad?)
Do you think that good/bad writing could tip the scale for a proposal to be funded/not funded if the proposal is right on the very edge of the funding zone?