Overview
NSF, NIH, the European Research Council and UK Research and Innovation all fund investigator-led research, but they ask different questions. NSF assesses every proposal on Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts, as set out in its Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). NIH study sections now use a simplified framework for most research project grants: Importance of the Research and Rigor and Feasibility are scored, while Expertise and Resources is judged as appropriate or as having gaps. ERC panels use excellence as the sole criterion, assessing the project and the principal investigator together, and invite shortlisted Starting and Consolidator applicants to interview. UKRI increasingly asks for a narrative Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) rather than a list-based CV.
We start by reading the specific funding opportunity with you — the NSF solicitation or program description, the NIH notice of funding opportunity (NOFO), the ERC Work Programme and Information for Applicants, or the UKRI opportunity page — and building a section-by-section outline that shows where each criterion is answered. Then we work through drafts in rounds: you provide the science, preliminary data and team information; we draft or restructure sections, tighten the argument, and check consistency between aims, approach, timeline and budget.
Close to the deadline we run a criteria-based read as a reviewer would, check page limits and required documents against the current guidance, and list anything your research office must confirm. We cannot promise funding, but we can make sure a strong idea is not lost in a hard-to-review document.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Early-career investigators preparing a first NSF CAREER, NIH R01 or R21, ERC Starting Grant or UKRI fellowship application
- Established principal investigators applying to a new council or program with unfamiliar conventions
- Researchers invited to an ERC interview who want the written proposal and pitch to be consistent
- Clinicians and scientists writing in English as an additional language for US, UK or European funders
- Research development offices needing extra drafting or review capacity at peak deadlines
Common problems we help with
- Your science is strong but the proposal reads like a paper, not an answer to the review criteria
- The Broader Impacts section feels like an afterthought bolted onto an NSF proposal
- Your NIH aims depend on each other, so failure in Aim 1 would sink the whole project
- You are unsure how to present your track record in an ERC B1 or a UKRI narrative CV without overclaiming
- Different co-investigators wrote different sections and the voice, terminology and numbers do not match
- The deadline is close and nobody has read the proposal as a reviewer would
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Close reading of the call, solicitation, NOFO or work programme, with a criteria-to-section map
- Structured outline and page budget for each required section
- Drafting and redrafting of narrative sections with you, from your notes, data and prior papers
- NSF Project Description with explicit Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts, plus the Project Summary
- NIH Specific Aims page and Research Strategy (Significance, Innovation, Approach) aligned to the simplified review factors
- ERC Part B1 (extended synopsis, CV and track record) and Part B2 (full scientific proposal) development, plus interview preparation if shortlisted
- UKRI case for support sections and R4RI narrative CV modules
- Consistency checks across aims, methods, timeline, personnel effort and budget
- Final editing for clarity, concision and reviewer readability
- Pre-submission compliance checklist against the current funder guidance
Not included
- Inventing or embellishing preliminary data, publications, collaborators or letters of support
- Submitting on your behalf through Research.gov, eRA Commons, the EU Funding & Tenders Portal or the UKRI Funding Service — submission stays with you and your institution
- Generating the proposal with AI tools in place of your own ideas; some funders, including NIH, restrict substantially AI-developed applications
- Promising a fundable score, a percentile or an award
What you receive
- Criteria map and outline
- A table linking each review criterion to the section and paragraph that answers it, with page allocations under the current limits.
- Drafted and edited sections
- Tracked-change drafts of the narrative sections agreed in scope, with comments explaining each structural change.
- Consistency report
- A short list of mismatches between aims, methods, timeline, personnel effort and budget, with suggested fixes.
- Reviewer-style read
- A written critique of the near-final draft in the funder's criteria language, highlighting strengths and likely reviewer concerns.
- Compliance checklist
- A list of required documents, formats and limits to confirm with your research office, based on the guidance version you are using.
- Interview pack (ERC, if shortlisted)
- Slide outline, likely panel questions drawn from your proposal and a practice session with feedback.
How it works
Call and fit check
You share the funding opportunity, your idea in a page and your deadline. We confirm fit, flag eligibility questions and agree scope.
Criteria map and outline
We build a section-by-section outline tied to the review criteria and agree which sections we draft, edit or only review.
Drafting rounds
Usually two or three rounds. You supply science and data; we draft or restructure, you revise and approve, and we resolve open questions together.
Integration and consistency
We align all sections, check numbers and terminology, and make sure the budget and timeline support the aims.
Reviewer read and polish
A final read as a reviewer would, followed by line editing and the compliance checklist before your internal deadline.
Funder frameworks we write to
- NSF PAPPG and solicitations
- Project Summary with separate Overview, Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts statements; a Project Description that addresses both criteria explicitly; results from prior NSF support where relevant; and biosketches and current and pending support prepared in SciENcv.
- NIH simplified peer review
- For most research project grants due from 25 January 2025, reviewers score Factor 1 (Importance of the Research) and Factor 2 (Rigor and Feasibility) on the 1–9 scale, and rate Factor 3 (Expertise and Resources) as appropriate or with gaps. We write the Research Strategy so each factor is easy to find.
- NIH Specific Aims page
- The one-page summary most reviewers read first: the gap, the long-term goal, the central hypothesis, two to four independent aims and the expected payoff.
- ERC Parts B1 and B2
- B1 carries the extended synopsis and the PI's CV and track record, and is what panels see first; B2 presents the full scientific proposal. We check limits against the current Information for Applicants.
- ERC interview
- Shortlisted Starting and Consolidator applicants present to the panel and answer questions; we help prepare a concise talk and rehearse likely challenges on feasibility and ground-breaking nature.
- UKRI R4RI
- The narrative CV's modules cover contributions to knowledge, to the development of others, to the research community and to broader society, plus an optional context section; word limits vary by opportunity.
Four councils, four ways of reading a proposal
NSF reviewers ask two questions of every proposal — what will we learn, and who benefits — and apply five review elements to both, including whether the plan is well reasoned and whether the team and resources are adequate. Broader Impacts that are specific, resourced and evaluated persuade far more than generic outreach promises.
NIH reviewers under the simplified framework focus on whether the research should be done and whether it can be done. Separating the importance argument from the rigor and feasibility argument, with clear rigor elements such as power, blinding, biological variables and alternative strategies, helps them score each factor.
ERC panels read the B1 at step one and decide which proposals proceed. The synopsis must show a ground-breaking question and a feasible route to answering it, and the track record must show the PI can lead it. UKRI assessors read the case for support alongside the R4RI, so the narrative CV should evidence the capabilities the project needs rather than repeat a publication list.
Where proposals usually lose points
In our reviews the same weaknesses recur regardless of funder. They are fixable when caught early, and much harder to fix in the final week.
- Aims that are interdependent, so one failed experiment blocks everything after it
- Innovation claimed but not explained: what exactly is new, compared with what?
- Methods without sample-size reasoning, analysis plans or alternative approaches
- Timelines that do not allow for recruitment, ethics approval or hiring
- Broader impacts or pathways to impact with no named partners, resources or measures
- Budget lines that the narrative never mentions
Policies to check before you submit
Funder rules change more often than most applicants expect. NSF periodically issues a new PAPPG, and the version in force depends on your submission date. NIH announced in notice NOT-OD-25-132 that, for applications submitted from 25 September 2025, it will not consider applications substantially developed by AI to be the applicants' original ideas, and it limits each PI to six new, renewal, resubmission or revision applications per calendar year for most activity codes. ERC eligibility windows, budgets and resubmission restrictions are set in each year's Work Programme. We work from the version you are applying under and flag items to confirm with your research office.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative criteria map for an NSF proposal
A fictional assistant professor in environmental engineering is preparing an NSF proposal on low-cost sensors for groundwater contamination. The excerpt shows how an early criteria map might look.
Intellectual Merit
Answered in Project Description sections 2–4: a new calibration approach for low-cost sensors (the knowledge gap), a field validation at two sites, and an open benchmark dataset. Reviewer question anticipated: why will this calibration transfer across soil types? Addressed with a planned cross-site test in Year 2.
Broader Impacts
Originally one paragraph on 'outreach to schools'. Revised plan: a partnership with a fictional county water authority to pilot sensors in rural wells, two undergraduate research positions and a public data dashboard, each with a named lead, a timeline and a simple measure of success, and each costed in the budget.
Consistency flag
The timeline shows field deployment in Month 6, but sensor procurement is budgeted in Year 2. Either move procurement or shift deployment to Month 14.
Illustrative example only. The researcher, agency partner and plans are invented to show the format of a deliverable.
What you’ll need to provide
- The exact funding opportunity or call, including any program-specific instructions
- A summary of the project idea, hypotheses or objectives, and any preliminary data
- CVs or biosketches of the team and a list of relevant outputs
- Any previous version of the proposal and reviewer comments
- Your institution's internal deadline and research office contact for budget and compliance
- Your preferences on how much we draft versus edit
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Funder and mechanism: an NIH R21 or a UKRI small grant is shorter than an ERC or R01 proposal
- How many sections you want drafted, edited or only reviewed
- State of your material: an outline and data versus a complete earlier draft
- Number of co-investigators whose sections must be integrated
- Whether interview preparation, R4RI or resubmission introductions are included
Turnaround depends on
- Time to the funder's and your institution's internal deadline
- How quickly you and co-investigators can return drafts and answer questions
- Whether preliminary data and budget figures are available early
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Who is the author of the proposal?
You are. The principal investigator is the applicant and certifies the content. We draft and edit from your ideas, data and decisions, and you approve every change. This is the same model many university research development offices use.
Can you help with NIH's rules on AI-generated applications?
We can explain the policy as published and make sure our work with you reflects your own ideas and writing. NIH has said it will not consider applications substantially developed by AI to be original work of the applicant. We do not generate proposals with AI in place of your input, and you should read the current notice and your institution's guidance yourself.
I have been shortlisted for an ERC interview. Can you help only with that?
Yes. We review your B1 and B2, draft likely panel questions, help you shape a short presentation and run practice sessions with feedback. The talk must be yours; we help you make it clear and well timed.
Do you prepare biosketches, current and pending support or data management plans?
We can edit personal statements and narrative content, and help structure data management and sharing plans. Formal documents generated in SciENcv, institutional certifications and budget forms remain with you and your research office.
How early should I contact you?
For a full proposal, ideally eight to twelve weeks before your internal deadline. For a review of an almost final draft, two to three weeks is workable.
What if my co-investigators disagree with the suggested changes?
That is common. We explain the reasoning in comments tied to the review criteria so the team can decide. The final choice always belongs to the PI and team.