Checklist for a winning a grant
- Future Students
- Current Students
- Research and Teaching
- Partners and Community
- About JCU
- Advanced Analytical Centre
- Applying to JCU
- Australian Lions Stinger Research
- Australian Tropical Herbarium
- Association of Australian University Secretaries
- Australian Quantum & Classical Transport Physics Group
- Careers and Employability
- College of Healthcare Sciences
- College of Medicine and Dentistry
- Division of Tropical Environments and Societies
- Indigenous Education and Research Centre
- International Students
- JCU Eduquarium
- JCU Halls of Residence
- Language and Culture Research Centre
- Marine Geophysics Laboratory
- Open Day
- Parents and Partners
- Pathways to University
- Planning and Performance
- Professional Experience Placement
- Rapid Assessment Unit
- About JCU Connect
- Explore Grants and Funding
Ethics and Research Integrity
- Low/Negligible Risk Applications
- Closing Dates for Submission of Human Ethics Applications
- Getting help from Human Ethics Advisors
- Health Service Districts and External HREC Approvals
- How to submit a human research ethics application: Full HREC review
- Human Research Ethics
- Human Ethics Advisors
- Complaints and Unexpected Events
- Animal Welfare and Ethics
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research Ethics
- Research Code of Conduct
- Clinical Trials
- Human Ethics
Partner with us
- Intellectual Property
- Research Contracts & Consultancies
- Innovate with us
- Defence Trade Controls
- Our Technologies
- Events, Workshops and Opportunities
- Contact Us
- General Enquiry Form
- Preparing for a New Collaboration or Partnership
- Safety and Wellbeing
- Scholarships @ JCU
- Tropical Sustainable Design Case Studies
- VAVS Home
- Australian Institute of Tropical Health & Medicine
Have you found out about the scheme in relation to assessment criteria, eligibility of all applicants, priority areas, average success rates, the average value of grants, duration of funding, length of the proposal and special instructions?
Have you allowed sufficient time to write, review and gain feedback from peers, mentors and/or JCU Connect?
Have you included a central, important, original question, goal or hypothesis? Is there a rationale for this?
Is your research plan organised and logical? Is it definite, yet flexible? Does it lead to a solution?
Is your project feasible and realistic? (Not excessively ambitious or grandiose)
Do you possess and have you highlighted a better than average track record, a pilot study or evidence of preliminary results?
Is your budget reasonable, believable and justified? Have you included well-argued reasons for requested equipment, consumables, maintenance, and other items?
Does your project have integrity? (No plagiarism, exaggerated claims, overlap, selective referencing)
Does your application carefully adhere to the guidelines, rules, format (margins, font size) and the funding objectives of the scheme?
Is the presentation of your proposal sound? Have you used short paragraphs, frequent headings, and clear diagrams?
Is your writing simple, direct and concise? Does it flow logically? Are there any flaws in your argument?
Have you checked for any evidence of poor expression, grammar or spelling errors?
Have you obtained feedback concerning your proposal or critical review from peers?
What Makes Proposals Uncompetitive
Research proposals are uncompetitive or fail because they lack qualities such as originality, rationality, simplicity, clarity, feasibility, and integrity.
Other reasons may include:
The expression is poor and project aims are unclear;
A weak hypothesis;
The project lacks innovation;
The steps and processes in the project are flawed;
The project is unlikely to lead to the stated outcomes and there is insufficient evidence that the project is achievable;
The milestones and the timeframe are inappropriate;
There is insufficient evidence for including novel approaches;
There is an inadequate demonstration of the Chief Investigator's experience and/or productivity;
There is insufficient time dedicated by the Chief Investigator;
The applicant fails to meet the needs or requirements of the funding agency.