Are you an early-career researcher learning to navigate the funding landscape?
Have you received panel reviews that left you asking yourself whether the reviewers even read your proposal?
Do you wonder what you can do to give your ideas the best possible shot at being funded?
If questions like these sound familiar, this proposal-writing bootcamp might be for you.
My name is Dr. Rebecca Ghent, a senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute (PSI).In my 20+ years’ experience both as a funded researcher and frequent panelist, I have observed that the single most important characteristic of successful proposals is clarity.
Our job as proposers is to tell a story; and that story has to be one that the reader can understand. All too often, proposers bury the vital elements of their stories somewhere in the depths of the proposal, asking the reviewers to work hard to discover them. Or they include far too much detail about basic concepts while glossing over the key details; or jump into the middle of an argument that is incomprehensible to reviewers who are not as familiar with the specific topic as the proposal writer. This leaves reviewers feeling annoyed, and often leads to a low score.
By contrast, a proposal that leads the reviewer step by step from problem to proposed solution to perceived impact is much more likely to leave the reviewer feeling that they understand the proposal. And this leaves them feeling satisfied. In the best case, it leaves them feeling excited and inspired!
Clearly, there are no guarantees in this business — but leaving reviewers happy is much more likely to result in a high score than leaving them exhausted and annoyed because they can’t understand what the proposal is trying to say.
A few years ago, I was on a review panel in which we had a number of proposals from self-described early-career researchers. One such proposal was chock full of good ideas and solid methods; but it was very confusingly written. Some of the panel members took the time to review it thoroughly, reading it more than once, and teasing the message out of the text.But some didn’t.One of the primary reviewers read it once, didn’t understand it, and gave it a very low score. During the discussion, the rest of the panel tried to convince this reviewer that the proposal actually had merit, but in the end, the aggregate score pushed it into unlikely-to-be-selected territory. I felt very frustrated by this situation: had the proposal simply been clearly written, the outcome might have been very different.I decided that I could help: and the idea for this bootcamp was born.
Over five weeks, we will work together to improve our ability to write clear, compelling proposals that are a pleasure to review. At the end of the bootcamp, each participant will have honed a five-page SSS-style proposal. During our time together, we will:
Read and comment on each other’s proposals, in multiple drafts
Discuss what makes a clear argument
Learn how to clear writing blocks
Gain confidence in our ability to tell the story of our ideas
Learn how to give review comments that are constructive, honest, and kind
Enjoy the collaborative writing experience
Each participant will submit a pre-written draft of a five-page SSS-style proposal two weeks before the first session. We will revise this draft throughout the course.
During each week of the five-week bootcamp, you can expect:
One synchronous two-hour video session per week
Writing and editing homework
Extensive feedback from me and the other bootcamp participants
This course is not a formula, hack, or trick. It is about understanding how to write clearly and how to organize a proposal for maximum impact. Though there is no guarantee of funding, this course will give you the best possible chance to communicate effectively with your review panel. These skills also readily translate to any type of scientific writing, including journal articles, job applications, or policy or opinion pieces.
No. Though grammar and punctuation are important (and we will correct any errors together), these are not the main culprits in making proposals hard to understand. We will focus on bigger-picture issues.
This course is built on practice, which includes reading the writing of others and revising our own work. It’s safe to assume that you will spend 2-4 hours in addition to the 2-hour live session each week.
Absolutely! All participants will sign a confidentiality agreement indicating that we will not use, report on, or share the research ideas of the other participants.
Sharing our ideas and our writing with others is a vulnerable activity. We will respect the vulnerability of our fellow participants, and embrace our own. We will be honest and kind in our critiques and accept critiques of our own work with humility and a recognition of the helpful spirit in which they have been made. We are on the same team, and we will work to lift each other up even as we offer constructive criticism.
We charge a small fee for participants to enhance commitment to the course. We all tend to follow through on our good intentions better when we have some skin in the game.
© 2026 Rebecca Ghent. All rights reserved.
Photo by Ben Wicks