Deep dives into NIH grant writing, reviewer psychology, and the strategies that separate funded grants from triaged ones.
Triage is not random and it is not personal. NIH reviewers triage grants for predictable, fixable reasons. We analyzed 200+ Summary Statements to find the patterns that lead to triage — and give you actionable fixes for each one.
Read article →Reviewers read the Specific Aims page first, and many form their entire impression of the grant before reading anything else. Here is how to write one that sets a competitive tone from the opening sentence.
Read article →Most researchers have never attended a study section meeting. The panel dynamics, the scoring process, and the reviewer psychology are very different from what most applicants imagine. Here is the full picture.
Read article →SBIR and STTR look similar on the surface but have critical differences in how they handle institutional involvement, IP rights, and the commercialization pathway. Choosing the wrong mechanism can disqualify your application.
Read article →The Innovation criterion is the most misunderstood in NIH grant writing. Reviewers are skeptical by training. The way to convince them is not to claim novelty — it is to prove it systematically with specific comparisons to the existing literature.
Read article →SBIR applications are reviewed by two panels: scientists and commercial reviewers. Most researchers write the commercialization section for scientists. That is a mistake. Here is what the commercial reviewer panel is actually looking for.
Read article →The Payline is our biweekly newsletter for NIH grant writers. Each issue: one insight, grant intelligence, and one question answered in depth.
Subscribe to The Payline →