Writing research articles and proposals requires different skills

Authors compile recommendations for researchers at every career stage, from PhD students to senior faculty members, to help them develop their academic writing and improve their chances of securing funding

Rodrigo de Oliveira Andrade

Close-up photograph showing an arm clad in a gray knit sweater, holding a blue pen over a notebook on a wooden table. In the background, a white coffee mug sits on a wooden coaster beside a spiral-bound notebook.

Academic writing, in the form of producing scientific articles and drafting proposals for funding agencies, has become an essential skill for advancing in academic and scientific careers.

The two tasks, however, require different abilities: writing a manuscript for publication demands a different set of skills from those needed to convince a funding agency to support a research project.

This is the central argument of a review article published in the journal Trends in Higher Education, written by Vicki L. Baker of Michigan’s Albion College, an international consultant in leadership and professional development who works as a career coach for academics; Staci Starck, a grants administrator at Michigan State University who advises faculty members and teams throughout the entire funding cycle; and Maria Rising, a writing and editing coach who leads The Rising Project and has worked in research and funding at a leading US scientific university.

The three authors draw on 65 years of collective experience in academia to propose recommendations organized by career stage, from doctoral students to full professors, covering both academic and grant writing.

Why this moment is important

The article frames the issue in the context of growing pressure: competition for external funding in the USA has increased over the past two decades, with a drop in proposal success rates at both the NIH (National Institutes of Health) and the NSF (National Science Foundation) compared to twenty years ago, although the number of proposals submitted has decreased slightly since the peak recorded in 2021.

The authors also cite a groundbreaking study that identified a misalignment between PhD students’ goals, the training they receive, and the careers they ultimately pursue—both within and outside academia.

PhD education continues to focus on training researchers, highlighting the need for greater attention to developing the diverse writing skills needed for an academic career.

An unequally accessible skill

The article’s literature review draws attention to racial and gender inequalities in access to research funding.

According to studies cited by the authors, Black researchers are less likely to receive funding from the NIH than those from other racial groups, and race is a stronger predictor of success in securing funding than gender.

One study cited suggests that differences in funding success between male and female scientists result from how researchers are evaluated rather than the quality of their work itself.

A linguistic analysis cited by the authors further highlights a paradox: reviews of grant proposals submitted by female scientists use more praiseful language, but this does not translate into higher success rates.

The authors themselves, however, stress that the evidence linking gender bias to success in securing funding remains limited and requires further investigation.

From the first steps to the elevator pitch

For PhD students, the authors recommend gradually developing their own research agenda:

Identify topics of interest;
Read the relevant literature;
Discuss ideas with advisors.

One practical exercise they suggest is developing a research topic that can be summarized in an elevator pitch, succinct enough to explain the study’s significance and why it deserves attention.

They also recommend developing the ability to identify primary and secondary sources, conduct targeted keyword searches, and locate both foundational studies and recent work related to the topic.

The majority of PhD students are unaware of the grants and funding opportunities available to support their research—accordingly, they are advised to contact the institution’s research support office or consult an advisor to identify funding opportunities. Other suggested approaches include:

Reading proposals already approved by funding agencies to understand their strengths;
Seeking partnerships with faculty members who already have active grant portfolios, including those outside their own department.

Learning to deal with rejection is also part of the training: reviewing evaluation reports, requesting feedback when it is not provided, and making new submissions.

Recommendations by career stage

The recommendations are organized according to typical academic career stages in the USA, from doctoral education to senior faculty positions, although some of the guidance can be applied to other contexts.

1. Doctoral student: Prepare an elevator pitch for the research topic; draft point-by-point response letters to reviewers; identify funding opportunities with the research support office; read successful funding proposals.
2. Assistant professor: Prepare a list of open questions in the subject area; set aside dedicated writing time; become familiar with funders’ research priorities; ensure the budget aligns with the proposal; start with smaller grants before pursuing larger ones.
3. Associate professor: Serve as an informal reviewer; diversify formats (journals, blogs); engage in direct dialogue with funders; write for audiences beyond academia.
4. Full professor: Participate on editorial boards; develop larger-scale multi-institutional proposals; apply for new funding opportunities; provide structured mentoring for junior researchers.

Consolidating the research agenda

For early-career faculty members, the recommendation is to continuously refine their research agenda by developing lists of unanswered scientific questions and action plans to investigate them.

The authors highlight the importance of being familiar with the leading names and schools of thought in the field (including differing viewpoints), clearly identifying the intended audiences for the research, and targeting journals, conferences, and networks where these topics are discussed.

The article also recommends learning both to lead collaborations and to be a good collaborator, as well as adopting more structured writing practices, such as setting aside dedicated writing time, setting productivity goals for each writing session, and arranging informal reviews with colleagues in advance.

For funding, the guidance is to understand the research priorities of support agencies and identify who has already secured financial backing in the field in order to explore potential collaborations.

The authors also stress the importance of ensuring that the project is feasible: the budget must be consistent with that set out in the proposal, and all costs associated with the project should be taken into account.

They also recommend starting with smaller proposals before competing for larger grant opportunities, which are generally more competitive and aimed at more experienced researchers.

Expanding networks and reach

At this stage, the recommendation is to continue developing writing practices by participating in writing groups and workshops, serving as an informal reviewer of colleagues’ work, and accepting invitations to review articles and proposals submitted to conferences and journals.

The authors also suggest diversifying both the formats and audiences for their writing, including content for newspapers and blogs, not just academic articles.

Another tip is to increase their presence in the field by serving as a conference session chair or discussant, taking on leadership roles in professional associations, and participating in business meetings for their division or area of interest within those associations.

The guidance on funding is to expand the scale of research by building on already successful studies and establishing direct dialogue with support agency representatives to present proposals and better understand their priorities.

The authors also recommend seeking collaborations with other principal investigators on larger-scale studies and writing for broader audiences.

Funding agencies are placing increasing importance on the social impact of research, which requires writing that is also accessible outside of the academic environment.

Leadership and mentoring

For academics at a more advanced stage of their careers, the key recommendation is to refine their writing and reviewing skills through participation on editorial boards and broaden the reach of their scholarly work by cultivating a diverse network of peers and publication outlets.

In the field of research funding, the suggested path is to develop proposals for larger-scale funding opportunities, often in partnership with multiple institutions, and apply to support agencies they have not previously approached.

The authors also emphasize the role of mentoring: guiding graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and early-career faculty members while intentionally integrating mentoring into their own research plan.

This point has recently gained regulatory importance in the United States: since May 20, 2024, all proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) must include mentoring plans, mentor training, and individual development plans for graduate students funded by the project, a requirement that, according to the authors, is also expected to reinforce the importance of structured mentoring for full professors.

The authors stress that the recommendations are not exhaustive and should be adapted to different disciplines and institutional contexts.

* This article may be republished online under the CC-BY-NC-ND Creative Commons license.
The text must not be edited and the author(s) and source (Science Arena) must be credited.