| Research Grant Applications: Where Do They Come From? |
| What Does a Grant Application Look Like? |
| Review Process |
| So I Got a Grant. What now? |
| So I Got a Grant. What Are My Responsibilities? |
| Example Grants |
| Scientific authorship: How to give credit |
| There are more grants than you can imagine | However, some are not that easy to find |
| EU: Cordis | Focus on multi-national collaboration. Typically just under 100 pages |
| Iceland: RANNÍS | All sizes and shapes |
| It looks a lot like a conference paper! | Except for a few obvious differences (such as a budget, length, and more) Abstract of the work to be performed Complete budget information for each of the years (usually 2-3) for which funding is sought Complete information on each individual associated with the research |
| Prior work section | Describes referenced previous published results of other investigators and sets the context for the contributions of the proposed work A section with information on all related work already accomplished by the person submitting the proposal |
| A research plan describing the order and methodology of the proposed work, with milestones and deliverables for the entire period | Must include: Predicted outcomes, pitfalls and/or possible difficulties which may be encountered, experiments/work designed to resolve these difficulties, and their predicted outcomes |
| Signatures of all involved | |
| Letters approving the use of facilities etc. | These depend on the nature of the research and the requirements of the particular insitution giving out the grant |
| Typically done by a committee | There should be at least one expert in the particular area of the application, plus some people familiar with the field |
| RANNÍS has 3 people reviewing each application | Sometimes outside Iceland |
| Reviewers grade the appliaction | RANNÍS: Gives each appliaciton one of three grades, Fail, Medium and High |
| The review is final | Reviews are returned to the applicant Duration of review process: 2-4 months |
| You will sign a contract with the institution giving the grant | This may include reconfirming that your budget and plan has not changed, or submittin a (small) revision of these |
| Once the contract has been signed by both parties you will get the first chunk of money | Subsequent payments of grant will typically be incremental, based on acceptable progress reports and reached milestones |
| Financial responsibility for the work |
| Ethical responsibility for the work, data collection, personnel involved, publications which may occur |
| Responsibility for publications which may be required |
| Use of any funds which may be awarded |
| Progress reports to the grant institution |
| Final report when work finishes |
| EU Cordis: Community Research & Development Information Service | Cordis PF7 home page |
| RANNÍS Project Grant | Example application form |
| Scientific Publications: The currency of Science | The scientific paper appearing in a peer-reviewed publication is the “currency” of science. |
| Date of publication, reception, acceptance | In addition to having a particular date of publication, many journals publish the date a paper was first received by the editors, before the revies and revision process started. |
| Ethics - Misaccreditation (plagiarism) | It is unethical to repeat verbatim from another author without proper accreditation. It is unethical to accredit oneself with work done by others. |
| First author | This is the main author of the paper, that is, the person who: - is the driving force behind the work presented - is the author of the ideas presented in the paper - did most of the work and implementation Ideally it is also the person who wrote most of the paper. |
| Reality | First author is often a professor who sticks their name on every paper published by a laboratory or department or group. |
| Second author | This is the “second person in command” for the work presented in the paper, that is whoever. |
| Third, fourth, fifth, etc. author | Typically a list of people who did some of the work; sometimes these are also people who had a hand in the writing of the paper, but very often they are not (mostly for practical reasons) |
| Extremely long authorship lists | Becoming increasingly common in group projects |
| Last author | Increasingly advisors/professors are putting themselves at the end of the authors' list on papers describing the work of their students |
| Acknowledgment vs. author? | If a person is not the authors' list (for whatever reason) but contributed something to the work, it is customary to put in a thank-you note in the Acknowledgment section |
EOF