| 查看: 6594 | 回复: 58 | ||
| 【奖励】 本帖被评价46次，作者xdz1978增加金币 29.6 个 | ||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | ||
[资源]
基金不中的虫子，我们还需要苦练内功啊，发一个秘籍，希望对大家有用
|
||
|
天天提心吊胆地等消息，不如苦练内功，自身强大了，机会就多了！ 老美的Ten Simple Rules for Getting Grants，对我们也有一定启发作用 如果觉得有用，别忘了给个评价 纳米盘下载地址：http://d.namipan.com/d/f0bc3ece1 ... 3b05069243500740000 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
296求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
267求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
26自然地理学303分求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
271求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
电子信息270求调剂
已经有12人回复
-
一志愿211生物学280分 求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
0854调剂
已经有12人回复
-
085400 328分 求调剂
已经有13人回复
-
化学308分求调剂
已经有24人回复
-
0703化学
已经有42人回复
» 本主题相关商家推荐: (我也要在这里推广)
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 国家自然科学基金最新申报趋势领会与感想-特别是选题与创新
已经有33人回复
- 欢迎各位虫子对本版的发展提出宝贵的意见和建议
已经有21人回复
- 普通高校老师的青年基金经验
已经有102人回复
- 第一年中了主任基金后第二年申请的题目要和第一年的一样吗？
已经有35人回复
- 去年拿到一个主任基金，今年又申报了一个青基，中奖几率有多许？
已经有35人回复
- 地球科学部三处专家的评审意见！请大家帮我看看！谢谢！
已经有19人回复
- 结合专家评审意见谈谈两年来青年基金的申请体会（兑现承诺贴）
已经有91人回复
- 【国基评审】基金评审专家意见
已经有55人回复
8楼2009-07-26 07:35:40
2楼2009-07-25 20:41:36
★★★★★ 五星级,优秀推荐
|
不就几个词吗？http://www.51xuewen.com/group/497/topic_4056.htm Rule 1: Be Novel, but Not Too Novel Good science begins with new and fresh ideas. The grant writing process should be a pleasure (no, we are not kidding), for it allows you to articulate those ideas to peers who have to read your grants but not necessarily your papers. Look at grant writing as an opportunity to have an impact. Feel passionate about what you are writing—if you are not passionate about the work, it is probably not a good grant and is unlikely to get funded. “Me-too” science will not get funded when funding levels are low. On the other hand, science that is too speculative will not be supported either, particularly when funds are tight—sad but true. Rule 2: Include the Appropriate Background and Preliminary Data as Required You need to convince reviewers that the work you propose needs to be done and that you are the best person to do it. Different granting programs require differing amounts of preliminary data. For certain programs, it can be said that the work must be essentially done before the grant is awarded, and that the funds are then used for the next phase of the research program. There is some truth in this. So where appropriate, do provide some tantalizing preliminary result, making sure to tell the reviewers what these results imply with respect to the specific aims of your proposal. In formulating the motivation for your proposal, make sure to cite all relevant work—there is nothing worse than not appropriately citing the work of a reviewer! Finally, convince the reviewer that you have the technical and scientific background to perform the work as proposed. Rule 3: Find the Appropriate Funding Mechanism, Read the Associated Request for Applications Very Carefully, and Respond Specifically to the Request Most funding organizations have specific staff to assist in finding funding opportunities, and most funding agencies have components of their Web sites designed to help investigators find the appropriate programs. Remember, programs want to give away money—the jobs of the program's staff depend on it. The program staff can help you identify the best opportunities. If your grant does not fit a particular program, save your time and energy, and apply elsewhere, where there is a better programmatic fit. Rule 4: Follow the Guidelines for Submission Very Carefully and Comply Many funding bodies will immediately triage grants that do not comply with the guidelines—it saves the program time and money. This extends to all the onerous supporting material—budget justification, bibliographies, etc. Get them right and keep them updated for future applications. Even if it goes to review, an inappropriately formulated application may aggravate the reviewers, and will have a negative impact even if the science is sound. Length and format are the most frequent offenders. Rule 5: Obey the Three Cs—Concise, Clear, and Complete The grant does not have to fill the allotted page count. Your goal should be to provide a complete reckoning of what is to be done, as briefly as possible. Do not rely on supplements (which may not be allowed) or on Web sites (review may be actively discouraged since it has the potential to compromise anonymity). Specify the scope up-front and make sure it is realistic with respect to the funds requested. A common temptation for inexperienced grant writers is to propose to do too much. Such applications are usually judged as overly ambitious and consequently poorly rated. Rule 6: Remember, Reviewers Are People, Too Typically, reviewers will have a large number of grants to review in a short period. They will easily lose concentration and miss key points of your proposal if these are buried in an overly lengthy or difficult-to-read document. Also, more than likely, not all the reviewers will be experts in your discipline. It is a skill to capture the interest of experts and nonexperts alike. Develop that skill. Unlike a paper, a grant provides more opportunity to apply literary skills. Historical perspectives, human interest, and humor can all be used judiciously in grants to good effect. Use formatting tricks (without disobeying rule 4), for example, underlining, bolding, etc., and restate your key points as appropriate. Each section can start with a summary of the key points. Rule 7: Timing and Internal Review Are Important Give yourself the appropriate lead time. We all have different approaches to deadlines. Ideally, you should complete a draft, leave sufficient time to get feedback from colleagues, and then look at the grant again yourself with a fresh eye. Having a spectrum of scientific colleagues who are similar to the likely reviewer pool critique your grant is very valuable. Rule 8: Know Your Grant Administrator at the Institution Funding Your Grant At the end of the day, this person is your best advocate. How well you understand each other can make a difference. Many grant administrators have some measure (limited to complete) discretionary control over what they fund. The more they know and understand you and your work, the better your chances of success. Do not rely just on E-mail to get to know the grant administrator. Do not be intimidated. Talk to them on the telephone and at meetings where possible—they want to help. Rule 9: Become a Grant Reviewer Early in Your Career Being on review panels will help you write better grants. Understanding why grants get triaged before complete review, how a panel reacts to a grant, what the discretionary role of program officers is, and what the role of oversight councils is provide valuable lessons for writing successful grants of your own and for giving others advice about this process. Rule 10: Accept Rejection and Deal with It Appropriately Rejection is inevitable, even for very good grants when funding levels are low. Learn to live with rejection and to respond appropriately. Do not be defensive; address each criticism head on and respond with facts and not emotional arguments. When resubmission is necessary, make it very clear to the reviewer that you understand what was wrong the first time. Indicate precisely how you have fixed the problems. In the resubmitted application, never argue with the validity of the prior review. If the grant was close to being funded the first time around, remind the reviewers of that fact by including the previous score if appropriate, and make it crystal clear why this version is much improved. |
3楼2009-07-25 20:56:39
4楼2009-07-25 21:01:52
