Writing Resubmission Proposals

Here is a four-part model with sample   responses to craft a resubmission proposal that addresses reviewer   criticisms. It typically runs one to three pages, depending on page limitations.

First, Introduce Your Response.
“In responding to our three reviewer critiques, we’ve substantially re-evaluated our research context and approach. The summary statements were extremely valuable in preparing this revised proposal. Direct responses to   the reviewers’ concerns are described below.”

  Second, Summarize General Concerns.
“All reviewers thought the research topic was highly significant but stressed that important changes were necessary. Accordingly, the changes are extensive: problems and solutions are clearly stated; the significance section specifically describes background information important for the   proposed studies, which has been divided into subsections for clarity. The specific aims are better focused. The research design section now explains the experimental approach for each specific aim.”

Third, Cite And Respond To Specific Reviewer Concerns.
“The first reviewer was concerned about the apparent lack of coworkers and limited resource description. In response, the PI has now hired an experienced laboratory supervisor and two advanced graduate students. The laboratory supervisor has strong background in cellular biology; thus, preparation of the laboratory samples will be straightforward. Additionally, a new Left Handed Wigit Analyzer has been purchased, enabling us to design more comprehensive experiments and add more experimental data.”

“The second reviewer felt the electrochemistry temperature experiments were tangential to the overall proposal. In response, we agree, especially since additional laboratory personnel and new equipment permitted us to gain additional preliminary data for the main experiments. Accordingly, the temperature experiments have been deleted in this revised proposal.”

“The third reviewer thought that although our assays might work, they involved a very risky set of experiments. In response, we took this criticism seriously and explored the matter further in the research literature. Our view remains in line with Reviewer Two who wrote “the use of assays to   identify monoclonal antibodies is very novel.” This methodological approach was reaffirmed in the Smith and Weston (2011) journal article.”

Fourth, State Your Conclusion.
“In this revised proposal, a wealth of new evidence exists that the proposed experiments will produce useful and publishable information. Moreover, reviewers’ concerns have been addressed and the proposal is now presented with a distinct focus on the   specific aims. The PI, along with his established track record and expanded   research group, is uniquely postured to carry out the proposed project. We thank the reviewers for their scholarly critique of our original application, which enabled us to substantially improve this revised proposal.”

 

 

 

Leave a Reply