ARISLA CALL FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS: HOW TO WRITE AN EFFECTIVE GRANT APPLICATION - 17 MARZO 2022 ARISLA SCIENTIFIC OFFICE
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
AriSLA Call for research projects:
how to write an effective grant
application
17 marzo 2022
AriSLA Scientific office
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica
AriSLA: Mission and Vision
The AriSLA The peer review process
Call for
research
projects Call for Applications for ALS research projects
General considerations and suggestions
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica
2
AriSLA: Mission and Vision
✓AriSLA research portfolio
✓Outputs and outcomes
The AriSLA
Call for The peer review process
research
projects
Call for Applications for ALS research projects
General considerations and suggestions
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica
3
The AriSLA team Maddalena Ravasi
Ufficio Scientifico
AriSLA, Italian Research Foundation for Amyotrophic Stefania Guareschi
Ufficio Scientifico
Lateral Sclerosis, is the main Italian Charity that supports
and promotes research on ALS.
Tiziana Zaffino,
Ufficio Stampa Anna Ambrosini,
Responsabile
Scientifico
Brigita Jitaru
Segreteria
Francesca Guadagni
Mario Melazzini, Amministrativa
Ufficio Amministrativo
Presidente AriSLA
AriSLA has been founded in 2008 by four Organizations:
Paolo Masciocchi,
Segretario generale
4
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica
AriSLA mission and vision
Mission: To support excellent research towards the cure of ALS
Vision: To become the landmark for the Italian scientific community, playing the role of catalyst and driving
force to fight ALS, providing the necessary economical, scientific and technical support
SUPPORT
COORDINATION PROMOTION
• Creation of networks among
• Dissemination of scientific results
researchers
within the scientific community
• Development of service facilities
• Lay communication about ALS and
• Promotion of training PROMOTION research to patients, donors, and
COORDINATION
• Scientific and administrative general public
monitoring of the funded projects
• Participation in international
synergies and alliances
5
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica
AriSLA research portfolio Basic research
Preclinical research
59
19
Clinical research 10
Technological research 4
→ Key features
14.1 M€
invested in research programs since 2009
14
Calls for application
Clinical
92 research Autophagy and
funded projects Excitation and
energy stress response
metabolism 10%
139 Research areas of the funded projects (2009-2021)
7% 22%
funded Principal Investigators
211
7 ± 1% original articles
average success rate calculated on accepted Genetics
24% 2010-2020 19%
and
applications genomics
RNA metabolism
326 and epigenetics
18%
publications derived from AriSLA funded Projects
Non-cell autonomous
(2010-2022) mechanisms
For further information see Book AriSLA 2021 Distribution of original articles by topic. Publication period 2010-2020
6
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica
Outputs and outcomes: bibliometric analysis
Publications: 326 total publications derived from AriSLA funded Projects (Web of science 2010-2022 - www.webofscience.com)
- 249 original papers
- 77 reviews
Relative Citation Ratio (RCR):
• Method to measure the influence of a research article by using its co-citation network to field and time-normalize the number of citations it has received.
It provides an alternative to journal impact factor to identify influential papers.
• NIH-funded papers are the benchmark for RCR. Any paper with RCR 1.0 belong to the top 50% of NIH-funded papers. (https://icite.od.nih.gov/stats)
RCR mean SEM RCR median N. publications NIH Category No. AriSLA publ AriSLA publ. ranking
All publications 2,28 0,21 1,53 274 Top 1% 4 1%
Original articles 2,21 0,21 1,43 211 (77%) Top 5% 16 6%
Review 2,54 0,57 1,73 63 (23%) Top 10% 26 9%
Dataset = 274 AriSLA papers - (2010-2020) indexed in the NIH iCite platform. WoS term=amyotrophic+lateral+sclerosis Top 20% 70 26%
(Source: iCite 2010-2020, analysis January 2022 - https://icite.od.nih.gov/analysis ). Top 50% 184 67%
Analysis of RCR distribution of AriSLA papers with respect to
NIH RCR percentiles.
7
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica
Triangle of biomedicine – plot of AriSLA-derived original articles
The "Triangle of Biomedicine” is a quantitative graphic representation elaborated by the iCite dashboard
https://icite.od.nih.gov/analysis that shows the relative density of articles in different areas of a triangle. The position of a publication
within the triangle is based on its Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) ontology.
The “density plot” shows the relative density of articles in an area of the triangle as pseudocolor, with white and ‘hotter’ colours representing the higher
article density, while the “bubble plot” indicates where papers are located. Publication period 2010-2020.
8
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica
AriSLA: Mission and Vision
The AriSLA The peer review process
Call for ✓Review phases
research ✓Actors and roles
projects Call for Applications for ALS research projects
General considerations and suggestions
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica
9
The peer review process
The funds are allocated through a rigorous review process, based on two steps; a Triage selection and Full Proposals evaluation.
Each Application is remotely reviewed in accordance with the policies and procedures set by AriSLA for this Call.
- Grant duration: - By 3 international - By 3 international - Review session Allocation of funds
1/3 years experts experts based on annual
- Feedback sent to availability
- Competitive - Feedback sent to all researchers
allocation of Triaged
funds researchers
Remote Triage of Remote evaluation of AriSLA Board of
Full Proposal submission synthetic proposal the complete proposal
Consensus Meeting
Directors
March – May June – July July – September October November –
December
10
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaActors – AriSLA’s Scientific Office
• The AriSLA Scientific Office manages the entire peer review process, in
particular it is in charge of:
₋ Preparing the Call for Projects
₋ Defining the composition of the AriSLA International Scientific
Committee
₋ Organizing the Consensus Meeting
₋ Providing feedback to applicants
• Key figures in the Office are the Research Program Managers, former
researchers with a strong background in biomedical research
Stefania Guareschi Maddalena Ravasi
11
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaActors – The International Scientific Committee (ISC)
The Scientific Committee conducts the review process and provides
funding suggestions on the basis of shared criteria and guarantee:
• Impartiality of judgment (no conflict of interest) and confidentiality
• Transparency and fairness of the evaluation
• Scientific excellence of the project proposal 1
• Attention to the return of the results on patients’ QoL
➢Members are internationally recognized leaders in their field of expertise
60
➢Italy-based Italian members are not included; foreign-based Italian members
are well-accepted
Geographical distribution of AriSLA ISC members (2009-2021)
12
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaActors – The International Scientific Committee (ISC)
Participation is on Composition may vary Composition is publicly
Confidentiality is
rotation basis, and it is according to the type of available. The identity of
preserved for a further
regulated by a contract applications being reviewers involved in
period of 5 years after
with AriSLA reviewed each application is not
the end of the contract
disclosed to the applicant
➢ In order to minimize conflicts of interest (financial or otherwise), reviewers should not:
➢ have published together with the applicants at least in the past 3 years
➢ be engaged in active collaborations with the applicants
➢ be professional associates of the applicants
➢ During the Consensus Meeting, reviewers with a conflict of interest with any application will leave the room
during the discussion
13
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaAriSLA: Mission and Vision
The peer review process
The AriSLA
Call for
The Call for Research Proposals
research
projects ✓ Feature and eligibility
✓ Evaluation criteria
✓ Scientific contents (summary; scientific strategy; preliminary data; research
plan)
✓ Administrative section
General considerations and suggestions
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica
14Eligibility Criteria
Eligible Host Institutions
• Italian non-profit Universities and Research Institutes, either public or private,
performing research activities consistent with the statutory purposes of the Foundation.
Salary support for the entire duration of the
• Investigators working in Host Institutions outside Italy or in for-profit organisations can participate as Collaborators only,
grant should be ensured even if the Applicant
upon presentation of a collaboration letter, explaining the type of support to the research project.
does not hold a permanent position
Declaration
• The Host Institution declares that the Applicant is authorised to submit the Application on its behalf, by signing the General
Information page (which must be attached to the Application by the PI, also on behalf of Partners, if any).
• The Legal Representative of the Host Institution has to declare that the Host Institution will provide the necessary facilities and
personnel to carry out the submitted research project. If the Applicant is not holder of a permanent position, her/his salary
needs to be provided through other means.
15
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaEligibility Criteria
Eligible Applicants
• Applicants must demonstrate proven scientific competence, independence, and capability to self-manage the proposed
project and must operate in the Host Institution for the entire duration of the Grant.
• Investigators are allowed to apply for a maximum of 2 Grants, and can be PI of 1 Application only.
Actual grantees
Applicants of ongoing AriSLA projects that are not expected to end by December 31, 2022, the following rules apply:
• a PI is not eligible to submit a new Application as PI, but can apply as Partner in one Multi-centre Application;
• a Partner of one ongoing project can apply for one new Grant, either as PI or Partner;
• a Partner of two ongoing projects is not eligible for the current Call.
16
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaFeatures of the Call
The Call is dedicated to both Pilot and Full Grant Applications focusing on basic, pre-clinical research areas or
clinical observational studies.
→ PILOT GRANTS (PG), research projects with highly innovative and original hypotheses, where preliminary data are either not
available or to be consolidated. They are intended to collect or strengthen preliminary data for subsequent larger scale funding.
₋ Only Single-centre Applications are admitted
₋ Maximum duration is 1 year
₋ Maximum request of 60.000 euro
→ FULL GRANTS (FG), research projects with a solid background and consistent preliminary data.
₋ Applications can either be Single-centre or Multi-centre. In case of a Multi-centre project, the synergy derived from Partners’ contribution
to the achievement of the project objectives should be evident.
₋ Duration can range from 1 to 3 year
₋ Maximum request of 80,000 €/year
[AMOUNT REQUESTED: if your project do not fit into the PG program, you can ask for a 2-year FG]
17 AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaEvaluation criteria: Pilot Grants
Triage evaluation Full proposal evaluation
1. Innovation and originality 1. Innovation of the proposed project
2. Quality and feasibility: 2. Expected impact of the results
• Relevance and significance for ALS
• Rationale 3. Objectives and methodologies
• Appropriateness of design and methods 4. Capability to successfully carry out the project
• Overall feasibility of the study.
5. Potential of the expected results to be attractive for larger scale
funding.
18
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaEvaluation criteria: Full Grants
Triage evaluation Full proposal evaluation
1. Innovation and originality 1. Strength of the background and rationale
2. Quality and feasibility 2. Availability of solid preliminary data and relevance of the project
• Relevance and significance for ALS for ALS
• Soundness of background and rationale 3. Clarity of the objectives and appropriateness of design and
• Robustness of the preliminary data methods
• Appropriateness of design and methods
4. Expected impact of the results on the disease knowledge and
• Experience of the Applicants in the field treatment
• Overall feasibility of the study
5. Investigator experience and synergy with Partners (if any)
6. Sound and effective exploitation of the results derived from
previously funded AriSLA Pilot/Full Grant (if applicable)
• Partner’s contribution, complementarity of
approaches and synergy are assessed by the
Reviewers
• Currently, there is no indication of maximum
number of centers
19
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaEvaluation parameters
Triage Scoring Scale ISC members are asked to assign a numerical
Triage Project triage score to each project. The score will
Recommendation reflect the recommendation whether the
Score Evaluation
project deserves full review.
45 - 50 Outstanding No concerns - Suggested for full review
40 - 44 Excellent Only minor concerns - Suggested for full review
35 - 39 Good Only few critical points - Can be considered for full review
30 - 34 Average Several critical points - Not suggested for full review
1 - 29 Poor Major concerns - Not suggested for full review
Full Proposal evaluation Scoring Scale
ISC members are asked to assign a numerical score
Project
to each project. The score will reflect the Score Recommendation
Evaluation
recommendation whether the project deserves to
be funded. 45 - 50 Outstanding No concerns
40 - 44 Excellent Only minor concerns
35 - 39 Good Only few critical points
30 - 34 Average Several critical points
1 - 29 Poor Major concerns
20
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaStarting an application – General Information
• ACRONYM: choose something easy, reflecting the content of your proposal. Possibly different from previous awarded AriSLA grants
• RESEARCH AREA: basic, pre-clinical research or clinical observational studies.
Modified from Telethon Multiround Call 2021-2024
Basic research Preclinical research
Therapeutic
New knowledge/ Research on Target Target
approach Proof of concept
gene discovery mechanisms identification validation
identification
1 2 3 4 5 6
How can I find Is this pathway How do I correct
it? How does it a target? How do I the misfunction? Does it work
work? confirm it? how expected?
21
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaRenewal Application by a former grantee Revised Applications
• A “Renewal Application” is a new funding request based on • Application submitted to a previous AriSLA Call that was
data from a previously funded AriSLA Grant, while a “New not funded may participate with a “Revised Application”,
Application” is a new funding request dealing with a different modified in accordance with the comments received during
research topic. the evaluation process.
• Renewal Applications of previously funded Grants are • Only up to two resubmissions of a previously unsuccessful
encouraged, and the effective exploitation of the results Application, not necessarily in consecutive years, are
obtained with the previous Grant will be matter of evaluation. allowed.
• The “Renewal Application” of a previously funded Pilot Grant
can only be submitted as Full Grant Application.
• The holder of a previously funded Pilot Grant may apply for
another Pilot Grant as a “New Application” specifying the
reasons of changing the research topic.
22
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaScientific contents – The Summary
Should be organized as:
• Layout: - RATIONALE
- Setting the stage - PRELIMINARY DATA
- Objectives of the proposed research - BROAD OBJECTIVES
- Design and methods - PROJECT DESIGN AND METHODS
- Significance - EXPECTED RESULTS
• Make your case well. You MUST:
- Generate interest in your scientific question
- Demonstrate the importance of your study
- Describe concise and convincing aims
- Indicate that you know what the expected results are
• Who is my audience?
All reviewers of the review panel - not only those who evaluate the application - will likely read
summary, significance, and specific aims (and will be asked to vote). Keep these parts simple
and don’t be too technical. They all need to grasp your ideas and “fall in love” with your project!
23
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaScientific contents – Scientific strategy
Background, rationale and objectives
• Do not waste time in detailing ALS in general (AriSLA funds only ALS related projects)
but the clearly and concisely introduce the disease characteristics you are proposing to
investigate in the proposal
• Put the attention on what is still missing: capture the reviewers' attention by making an
argument for why you should be funded. Tell the reviewers why testing your hypothesis
is worth funding, why you are the person to do it!
• In the rationale put all the steps necessary to understand what you want to achieve
• For 3ys grant, define maximum 3 Aims (use sub-aims). Do not propose too much
• Stay on ONE single story, avoid to develop more stories because they are not conclusive
• Your hypothesis should be provable and aims doable with the resources you are
requesting
Don’t take anything for
→ You want to fill the gap that is missing
granted!
24
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaMost common reasons cited by reviewers for an application's failure (1)
SIGNIFICANCE, RATIONALE AND SPECIFIC AIMS
• Problem not important enough or not specific for ALS
• No hypotheses or poorly articulated ones
• Proposed project a fishing expedition lacking solid scientific basis
(i.e., no basic scientific question being addressed)
• Rationale for experiments not provided (why important, or how
relevant to the hypothesis)
• Incremental research, not a step change
• Study not likely to produce useful information
• Lack of original or new ideas
• Problem more complex than investigator appears to realize
• Alternative hypotheses not considered
• Far too ambitious
25
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaScientific contents – Preliminary data
• You need solid preliminary results (insert figures and diagrams)
• Your results should sustain key points in your grant proposal suggesting that you may obtain results in all of your Aims
• If you are starting from zero, ask for a PG for one year. Not having preliminary
data is, in general, considered highly risky.
• If your proposal is highly innovative, you'll need to make a very strong case for
why you are challenging the existing paradigm and have data to support your
innovative approach
• Even if preliminary data are not required for PG proposals, preliminary idea
which gives meaning to the rationale is needed to make the Reviewer
understand what you want to achieve
26
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaMost common reasons cited by reviewers for an application's failure (2)
PRELIMINARY DATA AriSLA
proposal
• Proposal lacking enough preliminary data or preliminary data
do not support project's feasibility
• Great ideas but no preliminary data
• Studies based on a shaky hypothesis or data
• Investigator too inexperienced with the proposed techniques
• Not clear which data were obtained by the investigator, and
which reported by others
→ You have to convince reviewers that your proposal will work. If this is a completely new approach,
no matter how exciting it might be, the grant panel will require some evidence for its credibility
27
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaScientific contents – Research plan
Max 3 Aims, should answer to the questions raised in the Background/Rationale, filling the gap of
knowledge in the disease
Follow the same order presented in the background/rationale and preliminary results (makes the review
easier), but don’t be redundant with the content
Define ONE single story, go in details in each aim in order to achieve definitive result and answer to your
questions
Explain always the rationale of each sub-aim (experiment), what you expect to find, and what is your
alternative approach if you fail to obtain a result
Whenever possible suggest experiments that give rise to quantitative results, define the statistic analysis
and power for significance
Avoid/limit experiments too dependent on success of an initial proposed experiment: be sure that aim2
and aim3 would not only depend on having results in aim1
Begin each paragraph with a great lead sentence. Then elaborate on that.
28
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaMost common reasons cited by reviewers for an application's failure (3)
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE RESEARCH PLAN AND FEASIBILITY
• Methods unsuited to the objective
• Relevant controls not included in the study design
• Proposed model system not appropriate to address the proposed questions
• Over-ambitious research plan with an unrealistically large amount of work
• Direction or sense of priority not clearly defined, i.e., the experiments do not follow from one another, and lack a clear starting
or finishing point
• Experiments too dependent on success of an initial proposed experiment.
Lack of alternative methods in case the primary approach does not work
out
• Too little detail in the research plan - no recognition of potential problems
and pitfalls
• Insufficient consideration of statistical needs. Sample sizes not justified
with power calculations
29
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaScientific contents – Timetable
• Clearly subdivide Aims and sub-aims within the time of your request
• Keep the same order as in the Research plan
• Keep a logic order
• Try to prepare a Gantt diagram
Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
WP1 - Title
WP2 - Title
WP3 - Title
WP4 - Title
30
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaAdministrative sections
• Personnel. Be consistent between the amount of work proposed and the number of persons (man/months). Costs for
non-permanent staff (i.e., graduate students, PhD students, fellow student, post-doc or researchers without support
granted by the Host Institution), other than the PI/Partner, are allowed. Total annual labour cost should be indicated in
the Application budget.
• Budget. Make a realistic, consistent budget, especially for consumables; indicate the role and name of the personnel for
whom salary is requested
• Other Financial Support. Indicate if you are holder of other grants; if related to the proposal report possible areas of
overlap or synergy with the current request
• Host Institution. Try to set up a long-lasting collaboration with the Institution. At least, make sure your HI is keen to
support your salary till the end of the grant
• In order to submit the Application, the PI and the Legal Representative of her/his Research Institute (or a delegate)
must stamp and sign the completed General Information page. This must be downloaded from the Signature Section,
and the scanned PDF signed must be uploaded in the same Section. Documents can be signed with digital signature.
31
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaApplicant section – Your CV
Knowledge and skills
• The Reviewers use this part to see whether the PI is a leader in the field and has experience with the techniques
- Important to have good records in the topic, or at least in the methods you propose to use
- List any experience in foreign laboratories
Independence
• The CV should allow to determine also the independence of young investigators
- How many papers with the first name (or corresponding author)
- Any other/previous grants?
- How large is your group?
- Will you have the authorship of the proposed study?
→ Be honest and convincing especially if you want to make the case that this grant may offer you the possibility to become
really independent!
32
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaMost common reasons cited by reviewers for an application's failure (3)
RESEARCH EXPERIENCE AND SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE HOST INSTITUTIONS
• Inadequate track record or expertise in this area. Collaborations with experts can help to get around this criticism, so think
about approaching collaborators within or outside your institution early and get then to write a letter of support.
COLLABORATIONS. Indicate if you need to set up collaborations for key experiments in you grant proposal
(identify people with recognized record in the field; request letter of collaboration detailing
the topic of the interaction)
• Collaborators are researchers, other than project Partners, whose
support is needed for the completion of a part of the project (e.g.
providing specific cell cultures, animal models or tools)
• Economic coverage for collaborators is not provided by AriSLA
• The collaboration letter MUST BE in ENGLISH and should report in
detail what the collaborator will do for the project implementation
33
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaSuggested Reviewers
• They should not currently work in Italian Institutions
• Avoid friends (not associated with your work)
• Highly qualified Scientists, with specific interest in the argument of your grant proposal (if the topic is not within their
specific interest, they may refuse to participate in the review process)
• Reviewers are knowledgeable, experienced scientists, but they can't know everything. Chose those with real expertise
in your field
• It is better if AriSLA can rely on your suggestions, you are the one that knows better if a Reviewer may have a conflict
of interest with your work
• You can also indicate reviewers you prefer don’t see your application for a given conflict
34
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaAriSLA: Mission and Vision
The AriSLA The peer review process
Call for
research
projects Call for Applications for ALS research projects
General considerations and suggestions
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica
35General consideration
PUT YOURSELF IN THE
REVIEWER’S SHOES
Your writing:
• Make life easier to reviewers - Peer review puts a big burden on reviewers, so
they truly appreciate an application that is neat, well organized, and easy to
read. If the text is not crystal clear, what you think—or assume—is obvious will
be missed.
• Give the BIG picture (think to your audience) and don’t drown reviewers in too
many details
• State well the rationale for each aim: why do these experiments need to be
done?
• Make sure none of the “reasons for failure” apply to your idea
• Use active verbs, get a style. Keep thinking who is my audience?
36
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaBe Organized:
• Write the abstract, the overall goal and each specific aim first
• Start writing early, a little every day
• Ask for documents and accompanying letters as soon as possible
• Ask someone you trust outside your group to read the scientific contents
Be careful about reading the specific
requirements of the Call. Contact the
scientific office, if necessary. Don’t be
frightened to discuss the proposal you have
in mind...
37
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaIf you are not funded….
• Don’t get discouraged. You are not the only one!
• Listen to your Reviewers
₋ Read the Review feedback carefully. It is meant to provide you with
suggestions to improve your grant application
₋ Perhaps if reviewers did not understand your work is because you did not
make it clear and proved to be feasible
₋ You should learn from comments to re-write a more appealing grant the
next year
₋ Try to understand and solve all the pitfalls
₋ Maybe you need collaborators with specific expertise, especially if your
application is rejected more than one time
38
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale Amiotrofica•.
SUGGESTIONS FOR READINGS
✓AriSLA Call for Application for research projects 2022 - Guidelines for preparing
and submitting the Application online
PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY AND CONTACT US IF YOU NEED SUPPORT
Bandi@arisla.org
✓ Guidebook for New Principal Investigators (Institute of Genetics, CIHR. By R. McInnes, B. Andrews & R
Rachubinski) https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/ig_guide_for_new_pis_e.pdf
✓ Hossein Ardehali. How to write a successful grant application and research paper. Circ Res. 2014 Apr
11;114(8):1231-4. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303695
✓ Masud Husain. How to write a successful grant or fellowship application. Pract Neurol. 2015 Dec;15(6):474-8.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4680180/pdf/practneurol-2015-001206.pdf
✓ Grant Writing for Dummies
39
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaThank you for your attention!
40
AriSLA: Fondazione Italiana di Ricerca per Sclerosi Laterale AmiotroficaYou can also read
