Scientific Editing Services Providing guidance and support for developing competitive grant proposals.

In this guide, you will find a collection of helpful links to the NIH guidance on the 2023 DMS policy, including:

• Plan and budget for the managing and sharing of data
• Submit a DMS plan and budget request as part of grant proposals for review when applying for funding
• Comply with the approved DMS plan

Here you will find some tips for common questions, such as:

• What does the new plan need to include?
• How do I know if the new plan is applicable to my proposal?
• What are the major changes coming with the 2023 DMS policy?

In these slides, you will find step-by-step guidance on how to write a new DMS Plan according to the final NIH Policy effective on and after 1/25/23, including:

• An overview of the DMS plan
• Do's and Don'ts
• Elements required to be included in the plan
• Download the most recent template of the DMS plan including boilerplate language
• The NIH has also posted several Sample Plans with language that may be helpful to draft your plan.
• Watch a panel discussion on the 2023 Final NIH Policy for Data Management & Sharing with Wake Forest faculty Justin B. Moore, PhD and Ellen Quillen, PhD, and guest participant Sr. Scientific Writer Indra M. Newman, PhD.

NIH is committed to promoting the rigor of experimental design in research, and to increase the reproducibility of scientific experiments. Learn more and view tips from the NIH.

• Grant Applications
• FAQs on Rigor and Reproducibility 
• Resources for Preparing Your Application
• Enhancing Reproducibility in NIH Applications: Resource Chart 
• The Four Elements of Rigor Chart

The NIH limits this section to 30 lines of text; other funders typically have length limits as well. Consider the Summary as your “elevator speech” to reviewers and the funder. Stress what you really want them to know about your proposal – the need for answers to a scientific question, public-health importance, or timeliness of a particular opportunity, for example. Try not to merely repeat what the Specific Aims are, since those are explained in detail elsewhere. 

Be sure to mention each point you consider a strength, such as strong preliminary data, a unique animal model, or a strong investigative team. The Summary is read by all reviewers, including those not expert in the field. Keep abbreviations to a minimum and use as little jargon as possible.

This page is read the most carefully by reviewers – repeated revisions are worth the trouble Remember that if the proposal changes, the Specific Aims page needs revision too. Make sure you allow time for that critical polishing phase. The budget and justification also should match the Specific Aims. 

Writing Style

• Some people like sentence fragments: “Aim 1: To examine the prevalence of X in a hitherto understudied group” 
• Some like the topic sentence format: “The primary aim of this proposal is to examine the prevalence of X in a hitherto understudied group. X is a high predictor of disease Y, and…” 
• But there is no one “right” approach. Writers should focus on 3 key aspects: 
  • Clarity 
  • Consistency with subsequent text 
  • Is it a “preview of coming attractions”? Does it whet the reader’s appetite for more?

Writing Tips

• Use the full page for the Specific Aims
• Include a paragraph of “Background” information – it will put the Aims into a broader context for the secondary reviewer
• A well-designed figure on this page (e.g. logic model or proposed mechanism of action) can be effective
• The context (e.g. gaps in knowledge, hypotheses) can precede the Aims, or follow them to segue into the “Significance” section 

Keep “Significance” and “Innovation” brief – about ¾ page together. Review Tips on Significance and Innovation from the NIAID.

Significance

• Explains the importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress in the field that the proposed project addresses. 
• Explains how the proposed project will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice in one or more broad fields. 
• Describes how the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field will be changed if the proposed aims are achieved. 

Innovation

• Explains how the application challenges and seeks to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms. 
• Describes any novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or intervention(s) to be developed or used, and any advantage over existing methodologies, instrumentation or intervention(s). 
• Explains any refinements, improvements, or new applications of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions.
• It is reasonable that a pilot or proof-of-principle project (e.g., NIH R03 or R21) can have 2 or 3 points of innovation. More than that will strain the reviewers’ credulity. 

Aim for 4/6 pages (NIH R03 or R21), or 10/12 pages (NIH R01), to be the “Approach” section. The NIH offers phenomenal guidance that is germane to any proposal topic. 

Reviewers decide a proposal’s fate based on details in the Approach. Make sure you have enough room to satisfy their curiosity. 

Resource Sharing Plan

Your application may need to include a Resource Sharing plan if you are creating model organisms, plan to have a repository of final research data, or will generate data or other information related to genome-wide association studies. If so, describe your plan or plans in this section. It does not count against the page limits for the Research Strategy section, and is uploaded separately when you submit your application. Review the NIH policies on resource sharing. 

Samples of Other Sections of Applications

• NIAID Application Sections
• Data Sharing Plan
• Multiple PI Leadership Plan
• Worksheet for the Vertebrate Animals section
• Human Subjects information