Grant Resubmission Strategies

Rejection Is Normal

Most grant applications are not funded on the first submission. At NIH, where paylines often fall between the 10th and 20th percentiles, the majority of meritorious proposals require at least one resubmission before funding. At NSF, funding rates for many programs hover around 20 to 25 percent. Even at private foundations, rejection is more common than acceptance.

Understanding that rejection is a normal part of the process — not a judgment on the quality of your science — is the first step toward a successful resubmission. The investigators who build sustained funding records are those who treat reviewer feedback as data, revise systematically, and resubmit strategically.

Analyzing Reviewer Feedback

Read the Critiques Carefully

When you receive your reviewer feedback — called a summary statement at NIH, panel summary at NSF, or decision letter at most foundations — read it thoroughly. Then set it aside for a day or two before reading it again. The initial emotional response to criticism can cloud your ability to extract useful information.

On the second reading, categorize the critiques. Which concerns relate to the significance of the work? Which address methodology? Which are about feasibility, the team, or the budget? Organizing the feedback by category helps you develop a systematic response strategy.

Distinguish Major from Minor Concerns

Not all critiques carry equal weight. Major concerns — those that multiple reviewers raised or that affect the fundamental design of the study — must be addressed substantively. These might include questions about the central hypothesis, the choice of methods, or the feasibility of the timeline.

Minor concerns — a missing citation, a request for additional detail on a secondary analysis, a suggestion to clarify a figure — are easier to address and should not be ignored, but they are unlikely to determine the fate of your resubmission on their own.

Identify Misunderstandings

Sometimes reviewers misunderstand an aspect of your proposal. When this happens, resist the temptation to blame the reviewer. If a reviewer misunderstood your proposal, the writing was not clear enough. Your resubmission should clarify the point so that no reader could miss it.

Revising the Proposal

Address Every Critique

In your resubmission, you must address every substantive point raised by reviewers. Ignoring a critique signals either disagreement without explanation or carelessness — both of which undermine reviewer confidence. For each critique, either make the requested change or explain clearly and respectfully why the original approach is sound.

Add New Preliminary Data

The most powerful response to feasibility concerns is new data. If reviewers questioned whether your method works, generating preliminary results that demonstrate feasibility is far more persuasive than additional text arguing that it will work. Use the time between submissions to collect the evidence that addresses the core concerns.

Strengthen Weaknesses Without Undermining Strengths

Be careful not to over-revise. Proposals that were scored favorably in certain areas should retain those strengths. Wholesale rewriting risks losing the elements that reviewers praised. Focus your revision energy on the areas that were criticized while preserving what worked.

Tighten the Writing

Resubmission is an opportunity to improve the overall clarity and concision of your proposal. If your first submission was dense or difficult to follow, use this round to sharpen the writing. Clear, direct prose is especially important when describing changes, because reviewers need to quickly grasp what is different.

Writing the Response to Reviewers

The Introduction Page

NIH allows a one-page introduction for resubmissions that summarizes the changes you have made. This page is critically important — it frames the entire review of your revised application. Use it to acknowledge the reviewers' concerns, summarize your substantive responses, and highlight the most significant improvements.

Organize the introduction around the major concerns rather than listing responses to individual reviewers. Reviewers want to see that you understood the core issues, not that you responded to each comment mechanically.

Tone Matters

Be respectful and professional. Thank the reviewers for their time and expertise. Acknowledge that their critiques strengthened the proposal. Even when you disagree with a specific point, frame your response constructively. Dismissive or defensive language alienates reviewers and can turn a recoverable situation into a rejection.

Show, Do Not Just Tell

When possible, demonstrate changes rather than merely describing them. Instead of writing "we have added more detail about our statistical approach," cite the specific page and section where the revised analysis plan appears. Instead of claiming that a concern has been addressed, provide the evidence that addresses it.

Timing and Strategy

Know the Resubmission Rules

Each funder has specific rules about resubmissions. NIH allows one resubmission (A1) of an unfunded application. NSF allows resubmission with no formal limit but expects significant revision. Foundations may have their own policies — some invite resubmission, others do not.

Use the Full Review Cycle

Plan your revision to take advantage of the available time. If you have nine months before the next submission deadline, use the early months to collect new data, the middle months to revise the proposal, and the final months to get feedback from colleagues and polish the document.

Consider a New Submission

If the critiques suggest fundamental problems with your research direction — rather than fixable issues with the proposal — a new submission with a substantially revised concept may be more appropriate than a direct resubmission. Starting fresh allows you to incorporate everything you learned without the constraints of responding to prior critiques.

Common Pitfalls

• Ignoring or dismissing reviewer feedback, even when you believe it is incorrect
• Making only cosmetic changes and resubmitting essentially the same proposal
• Over-revising and losing the strengths of the original proposal
• Being defensive or combative in the response to reviewers
• Waiting too long to begin the revision process

A resubmission is not a second chance at the same proposal — it is an opportunity to present a stronger version of your work, informed by expert feedback. Investigators who approach resubmission with discipline and strategic thinking significantly increase their chances of funding.