At ScientifyResearch, we have advised researchers across disciplines and around the world on grant success. We see one mistake again and again: treating grant writing as if it were journal writing.
Given your familiarity journal papers, it is all too understandable that you would approach writing grants as you would writing your paper. Both are essential skills for a long-term research career. There is usually some form of peer review involved. Both shape your reputation, your opportunities, and your long-term prospects in academia.
But that is where the similarities end.
A journal article and a grant proposal do not have the same purpose, audience, structure, or language. If you write a grant like a paper, you make the reviewer work too hard to understand why your project matters, why it fits the funder’s priorities, and why you are the right person to deliver it.
And that is most likely why, your latest grant application was not successful.
You read papers every day. When did you last read a full grant?
Most researchers read papers constantly. You know what a strong paper looks like because you have seen hundreds, maybe thousands of them.
But how often do you read successful grant applications?
Unless you work for a research funder, probably not very often. That means your instinct for what makes a strong grant may be much less developed than your instinct for what makes a strong paper.
This is one reason grant writing feels difficult. You are not just writing under pressure, with tight deadlines and juggling all your other academic responsibilities. You are writing in a genre you may not have had enough access to study properly.
Papers and grants have different goals
From your perspective, the goals may look similar. You want the paper accepted. You want the grant funded. Both help your academic career.
A journal article gives you recognition from your peers. A grant gives you recognition from a funder, plus the resources to do the work.
But from the perspective of your audience, the journal editors and the funder managers, the goals are very different.
A journal’s primary purpose is to communicate research among peers. A funder, on the other hand, seeks to advance their mission and create impact.
Funders invest in research because they need to deliver on a mission. Believe it or not, funders also have “bosses”. Funders need to show value to taxpayers, boards, donors, companies, governments, or communities. They are not simply asking, “Is this good science?” They are asking, “Is this the right project, led by the right people, at the right time, and will help advance our mission?”
Clearly, the decision makers for grants and journals are asking different questions. Let’s look at the respective audiences in more detail.
Papers and grants have different audiences
Yes, both papers and grants may be peer reviewed. But the “peer” in grant reviews are very likely not the same as the “peer” in your journal reviews.
In journal review, your reviewers are usually experts in your field. Your dreaded reviewer most likely understands your methods, terminology, debates, and assumptions. Your use of jargons and field-specific terminology establishes your credibility in the field.
In grant review, the panel is often broader. Reviewers may be experts, but not necessarily experts in your exact niche. They may come from adjacent fields, different methodologies, policy backgrounds, industry, charities, or funding bodies.
That means the words you use to impress your journal reviewers will probably only make the work of your grant reviewers more challenging.
Dense jargon, narrow debates, and highly technical explanations can make sense in a journal article. In a grant, they confuse the very people you need to persuade.
Your job is not to impress reviewers with how much you know. Your job is to make it easy for them to understand:
- what problem you are solving,
- how big is this problem,
- why it matters now,
- why your approach is credible,
- why you are the right person or team,
- why this funder should care.
A grant is a matchmaking exercise
A journal article says: “Here is what we found.”
A grant proposal says: “Here is a problem you care about, here is how we will solve it, and here is why funding us will give you a good return on your investment.”
That is a completely different kind of communication.
The funder tells you what they are looking for through their call text, strategy, mission, eligibility rules, review criteria, and priorities. Your job is to show fit.
A strong grant does not simply describe a good research idea. It makes the match obvious.
It shows that your project belongs in that scheme. It shows that your work can help the funder achieve its goals. It shows that you understand not only the science, but also what is important to the funder.
Stop writing for yourself. Start writing for your audience
Many researchers write grants as if the reviewer is already convinced the topic matters, but they are not.
Many write as if the reviewer has deep technical knowledge of the field, which is often not the case.
Many write as if quality alone will carry the application. It will not.
A fundable grant needs more than a strong idea. It needs a clear argument for importance, feasibility, fit, capability, and impact.
This does not mean exaggerating. It does not mean making unrealistic promises. It means translating your expertise into the language of value, relevance, and confidence.
When you stop treating grants like papers, your chances improve
Yes, grant success rates are often low. But not every rejected grant was equally competitive. When you look at the reasons that grants are rejected, you will see that many do not have a chance to start with, including:
- Not meeting the eligibility criteria.
- Poor fit for funder’s priorities.
- Inability to articulate the what, why, how and who.
When you understand why grants are rejected, you begin to see that success is not only about luck. It is about fit. It is about concise and persuasive communication. It is about making the reviewer’s job easier. It is about showing the funder that your project is not just excellent, but will be the best bet to advance their mission.
So, stop writing grants like journal articles.
A paper communicates your science to peers.
A grant persuades a funder that your work is worth investing in.
The sooner you treat them as different genres, the sooner your proposals become stronger.
Need more grant success?
➡️Book a personal consultation with us: Strategic Grant Writing Consultation
Supporting your researchers to even more grant success?
If you work in a research office or researcher development team and would like a fresh perspective on the grant writing challenge, we are here to support you. Our workshop services are tailored to your institution’s researchers and can be delivered online or in person.
➡️Explore the workshop: Strategic Communication Workshop for Grant Success
Afterthought
I wrote the outline for this piece on a flight home to Stockholm from Munich, after hosting a recent grant-writing workshop. The discussions with participants stayed with me, especially around how difficult it can be to translate complex, excellent research into a proposal that is clear and compelling for research funders.
I would like to thank all the researchers I have had the privilege to consult. Thank you for your engagement, openness, and inspiration. You make our work meaningful.
At ScientifyResearch, we love supporting researchers. Our mission is to create better funder-fundee matches, reduce the time researchers spend on the rejection treadmill, and thereby having more time for valuable and impactful research.