Getting internal review is a critical step for a successful grant application! It allows you to catch errors, strengthen your arguments, and ensure clarity before the final submission.

Here's a comprehensive guide to help you request reviewers with relevant expertise, including identifying potential reviewers, preparing your materials, and crafting a compelling request.

1. Requesting Reviewers with Relevant Expertise

This involves three main steps: A. Identifying Potential Reviewers, B. Preparing Your Materials, and C. Crafting the Request Email.

A. Identifying Potential Reviewers (Who to Ask)

Think broadly but strategically about who can offer the most valuable feedback for different aspects of your grant. Aim for 2-4 reviewers, ideally with diverse perspectives.

• Direct Colleagues/Lab Members:


• Pros: Familiar with your work, methodology, and lab resources. Can provide granular feedback.


• Cons: Might be too close to the project to see big-picture flaws or lack specific expertise for a niche aspect.


• Best for: Detailed methods, feasibility, internal consistency, preliminary data interpretation.


• Faculty in Your Department/Center (But Not Direct Collaborators):


• Pros: Understands the institutional context, often has grant-writing experience in your field, can provide "outsider but insider" perspective.


• Cons: May not have deep expertise in your exact sub-area.


• Best for: Overall scientific merit, significance, clarity of aims, approach, and how it fits into the broader field.


• **Faculty/Researchers in Related Fields (Cross-Department/Institution):**


• Pros: Can identify jargon, assess broader impact, and ensure your proposal is accessible to reviewers outside your immediate niche. Excellent for multidisciplinary grants.


• Cons: Might miss highly technical details specific to your field.


• Best for: Clarity, broader impact, readability for a general scientific audience, potential for new collaborations.


• Experienced Grant Writers/Awardees (Mentors, Senior Faculty):


• Pros: Have successfully navigated the grant landscape, understand funding agency priorities, and can provide strategic advice on framing and persuasiveness.


• Cons: May be very busy; might focus more on "grant strategy" than deep scientific dive.


• Best for: Overall strategy, responsiveness to review criteria, budget justification, biosketch/other support review, common pitfalls.


• Former Reviewers for Your Target Funding Mechanism:


• Pros: Understand the unwritten rules, common reviewer biases, and specific expectations of the review panel.


• Cons: Harder to identify unless they've served on a panel you know.


• Best for: Grant-specific advice, "reviewer mindset."


• Junior Faculty/Postdocs (Especially if they've written similar grants):


• Pros: Often very thorough, eager to help, and can provide fresh eyes on the science. They've recently been through the grant-writing process.


• Cons: May lack the broader strategic perspective of more senior faculty.


• Best for: Detailed review, catching typos, clarity, "does this make sense?"

• Balance: Try to get a mix of deep expertise and broader perspective.


• Time: Choose people you know are reliable and have a reputation for giving thoughtful feedback.


• Availability: Reach out early!


• Reciprocity: If you've reviewed for someone, they're more likely to review for you.

B. Preparing Your Materials (What to Provide)

Make it as easy as possible for your reviewers. The less work they have to do to understand what you need, the more likely they are to help and provide quality feedback.

• The Grant Draft (Well-Organized):


• Full Draft: Include all sections (Aims, Significance, Innovation, Approach, Biosketches, Facilities, etc.). Even if some are rough, it provides context.


• Page Numbers: Essential for easy referencing.


• Version Control: Clearly label the draft (e.g., "GrantR01Draftv3Sept15").


• Formatting: Use the agency's required fonts/margins/line spacing so they can get a realistic feel for length.


• Specific Review Questions/Areas of Focus:


• This is CRITICAL. Don't just say "please review my grant." Guide their feedback.


• General questions:


• Is the central hypothesis clear and compelling?


• Are the specific aims logical and achievable within the proposed timeframe?


• Is the significance clearly articulated and persuasive?


• Is the innovation evident and impactful?


• Are there any major flaws or gaps in the experimental design?


• Is the writing clear, concise, and free of jargon?


• Does it meet the page limits?


• What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses?


• **Specific questions for your grant:**


• "I'm particularly worried about the feasibility of Aim 2 – do you think the preliminary data sufficiently supports it?"


• "Is my approach for [complex methodology] clear to someone who isn't an expert in it?"


• "Does the budget justification adequately support the proposed work?"


• "Is the impact statement strong enough?"


• Relevant Guidelines/Criteria:


• Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Link: Or at least the specific review criteria for your grant mechanism (e.g., NIH's Significance, Innovation, Approach, Investigator, Environment).


• Target Reviewer Score Sheet (if available): Some agencies provide the actual sheet reviewers use. This helps them structure feedback.


• A Clear Timeline:


• Your Internal Deadline: When you need their feedback by (ideally 1-2 weeks before your own final internal deadline for revisions, and 3-4 weeks before the agency's submission deadline).


• Agency Submission Deadline: For context.


• Brief Project Overview: A 2-3 sentence summary of your project to include in the email itself.

C. Crafting the Request Email (The Ask)

Be clear, concise, respectful of their time, and make it easy for them to say yes or no.

Subject Line:

• Clear and Urgent: "Grant Review Request - [Your Name] - [Grant Type/Agency] - [Target Date for Feedback]"


• Example: "Grant Review Request - Dr. Smith - NIH R01 - Feedback by Oct 15"

Dear [Reviewer's Name],

I hope this email finds you well.

I am writing to humbly request a favor: I am preparing to submit an [Grant Type, e.g., NIH R01, NSF CAREER, internal seed grant] proposal to [Funding Agency, e.g., NIH, NSF, specific foundation] with a target submission date of [Agency Submission Date, e.g., November 5th]. I would be incredibly grateful if you would consider providing an internal review of my draft.

Project Overview:
My proposal focuses on [brief 2-3 sentence summary of your project and its main goal/significance].

Why I'm Asking You:
Your expertise in [Specific area of their expertise, e.g., "neuroimaging analysis," "drug development," "educational psychology," "your track record with similar awards"] would be incredibly valuable in strengthening this application. I believe your perspective on [specific aspect, e.g., "my proposed statistical approach" or "the broader impact of this work"] would be particularly insightful.

What I'm Asking For & Timeline:
The full draft of the proposal (approx. [X] pages) is attached. I would ideally need comments back by [Your Internal Deadline - e.g., Friday, October 15th] to allow me sufficient time for revisions before the final submission.

I completely understand that you are very busy. Even high-level feedback on the clarity of the aims, significance, or overall approach would be immensely helpful. I've also included a short list of specific questions I'm wrestling with in the attached document to guide your review, should you have the time.

Materials Attached/Linked:

• My Grant Proposal Draft (PDF)


• Specific Review Questions (Word Doc/PDF)


• Link to the [Funding Agency] FOA / Review Criteria (for context)

I would, of course, be happy to return the favor for any of your upcoming proposals.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

[Your Name]
[Your Title]
[Your Department/Affiliation]
[Your Email/Phone]

After You Send the Request:

• Follow Up (Gently): If you don't hear back in 3-5 business days, send a polite follow-up.


• Be Responsive: If they agree, thank them promptly and answer any questions they have.


• Be Gracious: When they send feedback, thank them profusely. Take their feedback seriously, even if you don't implement every suggestion.


• Offer to Discuss: Propose a brief meeting (virtual or in-person) to discuss their comments if they prefer.


• Acknowledge Their Help: A small token of appreciation (a thank you note, coffee, or mention in an "Acknowledgements" section if allowed and appropriate) can go a long way.