Grant writing often feels mysterious: What do reviewers actually read? What makes them reject a proposal within minutes? We are going to bring some clarities to these frequently asked questions during this week (9th-12th February 2026) grant writing and evaluation workshop organized by the Career Development Office of Umeå Postdoc Society.
Day 1: We had two experienced and insightful speakers today
Senior Lecturer in Health Economics
Associate Professor in Global Health
Professor at Department of Computing Science
Role: Head of department
Both have shared concrete, sometimes brutally honest insights from the reviewer’s side of the table.
Here are the key takeaways every applicant should know.
The Reviewer’s Reality (Forte Perspective)
At Forte, reviewers can select only about 25% of applicants. This means competition is intense — and small weaknesses matter.
One crucial (and often overlooked) fact: for some Forte calls, reviewers are only allowed to read the abstract. Not the full proposal. Just the abstract. If it fails to communicate the essence of your project, your application may never recover.
Three Core Evaluation Criteria
Forte focuses on three main pillars:
- Scientific quality
Clarity and coherence across the entire project. If the research question is vague or poorly motivated, reviewers cannot judge the rest.
- Societal relevance
How will the results be used, disseminated, or make a difference beyond academia?
- Feasibility
A realistic work plan, methods, and timeline.
In addition, sex and gender bias and ethical considerations must be addressed where relevant. Missing any of these elements can push an application straight into the rejection pile.
The Feasibility Paradox
Applicants often struggle with feasibility: If we already know all the steps, what is the point of doing the research? Reviewers see this tension clearly.
- If everything is already known → the project lacks novelty.
- If methods are completely untested → the project may not be credible.
- If reviewers cannot understand the research question → feasibility cannot be assessed at all.
Experienced reviewers can quickly judge whether a project sounds realistic. If the research question is unclear, they will reject — not because the idea is bad, but because it was not communicated well.
Why the Abstract Is Everything
The abstract is not just a scientific summary. It is a persuasive text.
A strong abstract should clearly state:
- The research problem and main question
- Why it matters scientifically and societally
- Why you are the right person to do it
- Who your collaborators are and what they contribute
For calls where only abstracts are read, briefly but explicitly mentioning methods, data, and roles is essential.
Career Stage and Collaboration
In Sweden, an important eligibility rule applies you must become PI within seven years of your PhD — otherwise you are no longer eligible for some grants.
When applying with co‑applicants:
- Roles must be clearly defined
- Co‑applicants should support, not overshadow, the main applicant
- CVs should include publications relevant to each person’s contribution
For starting grants, reviewers typically read the full proposal, but clarity in the abstract still sets out the tone.
Writing Grants with the Reviewer in Mind (General Perspective)
Frank Drewes emphasized something deceptively simple: read the call for proposals carefully.
Before writing a single paragraph, check:
- Eligibility rules
- Departmental requirements
- Whether co‑applicants are required, encouraged, allowed, or disallowed
- Formatting and structure guidelines
Many proposals fail not because of bad science, but because they ignore these basics.
Learn from Successful Proposals
If you want examples of funded grants, look at the funding agency’s website. Awarded projects are often listed publicly. You can then request copies of successful proposals from the agency — they are legally obliged to share them (**in Sweden).
Postdoc societies can play an important role here by collectively requesting and sharing such examples.
Be Your Own Harshest Reviewer
A useful exercise: read your proposal as if you know nothing about the project.
Ask yourself:
- What catches my attention?
- What feels unclear or overcomplicated?
- Do I understand why this matters?
Reviewers must be convinced not only that the project is good, but that you are the right person to carry it out.
Interestingly, even relatively simple research questions can succeed — sometimes more easily than ambitious ones — if feasibility is strong and clearly argued.
Make It Easy for a Tired Reviewer
Grant proposals are often read late at night, under time pressure. Pedagogy matters.
Good strategies include:
- Explicitly listing main research questions
- Explaining ideas step by step
- Using illustrations where appropriate
While figures take up space, they can be extremely effective in grabbing attention and improving understanding.
Writing Style: Clear Beats Clever
- Stick to precise scientific language
- Avoid pompous wording and unnecessary adjectives
- Keep it short, focused, and effective
Generative AI tools can help polish language, but they are not scientists and can introduce errors. The proposal must remain yours, in content and responsibility.
Feedback, Rejection, and Resilience
Share your proposal with your colleagues early — not one week before submission. Give colleagues enough time to comment, and don’t get too attached to text that doesn’t add value.
Do not worry excessively about idea theft; it is rare and should not stop you from seeking feedback.
Finally, remember this: even rejections can be valuable.
- Read evaluations carefully if they are available
- Revise with an open mind
- Improve and submit again — possibly to another funding agency
Final Thoughts
Strong grant proposals are not about sounding impressive. They are about being:
- Clear before clever
- Feasible without being trivial
- Novel without being unrealistic
- Persuasive without being pompous
Most importantly, they help reviewers quickly understand what you want to do, why it matters, and why you are the right person to do it.
For any queries, please contact the Career Development Office of Umeå Postdoc Society (Najat Dzaki, Keshi Chung and Madhusree Mitra).
Proudly powered by WordPress
