How to be savvy with your unsuccessful MRFF application. Our four top tips!

We understand that it’s incredibly disappointing to be unsuccessful with your funding application. But savvy applicants will consider an unsuccessful outcome as a learning opportunity.

Resubmitting your application with minor changes ignores the reality that your application fell below the funding cut-off point; it just wasn’t competitive.

In contrast, a savvy applicant will recognise that something, perhaps many things, must change in their proposal.

So, where do you begin?

Here’s our four top tips:

Tip #1. Understand your chosen stream

Given that guidelines for schemes and streams can vary from year to year, before you put effort into revising your proposal, ensure your project still aligns with the objectives and intended outcomes of your chosen stream. Even if your research is worthy of a Nobel prize, if it doesn’t meet the purpose of the funding opportunity it will be deemed as Not For Further Consideration (NFFC).

 

Your checklist:

• Have you read the new guidelines for your chosen stream?

  • Common flaw: application proposes outcomes that no longer align with the new purpose of the stream.

• Have the eligibility requirements changed since your previous submission?

  • Common flaw: team composition doesn’t align with the new eligibility guidelines.

• Have the elements within the 4 assessment criteria changed?

  • Common flaw: proposal doesn’t address each of the elements within the criteria, which leaves reviewers unable to assess how your project meets the score 7 descriptors.

• Does the unmet gap you had previously proposed remain unchanged?

  • Common flaw: advances in the field over the previous 12 months result in the objectives no longer addressing an unmet need, and/or lack of consistent engagement with stakeholders since the previous submission means the objectives no longer address their current needs.

Tip #2. Present a robust Substantiation Statement

Before progressing to panel assessment processes, each MRFF application is assessed for eligibility. For MRFF applications submitted via NHMRC’s Sapphire portal, eligibility is determined using the brief Substantiation Statement that must appear at the top of page 1 (Section A).

Because you’ve familiarised yourself with the new guidelines for your chosen stream (Tip #1), now you can revisit the Substantiation Statement for your resubmission.

Your checklist:

• Do you have a Substantiation Statement?

  • Common flaw: this mandatory statement is missing.

• Is it presented at the very top of page 1?

  • Common flaw: this statement is embedded throughout the first page of text or appears as a summary at the end of page 1.

• Does it explain how your project aligns with the objectives and intended outcomes of your chosen stream, and any other stream-specific eligibility criteria?

  • Common flaw: this statement includes background literature and/or reads like an executive summary.

• Is it succinct: perhaps one paragraph only in length?

  • Common flaw: this statement spans the entire page 1, representing what reviewers might expect to see for an NHMRC Ideas or Investigator Grant application. 

Tip #3. Clearly articulate the potential impact of your project

It’s unfortunate that applicants commonly use the first three pages of their application (for NHMRC-administered MRFF opportunities) to provide a background section or literature review, dedicating just a small part of this section to discussing impact. Project Impact is worth a hefty 40% of the overall score, but many applicants risk this by focusing more on providing background to, or rationalising, their project than thoroughly discussing what will change because of their research.

 

How do you get around this problem?

 

For all MRFF opportunities, one of the elements of the Project Impact assessment criteria asks applicants to explain how their project ‘builds on existing evidence’ or ‘addresses an unmet need’. The wording may differ across different MRFF schemes and streams. It’s in your response to these assessable elements where you should draw on existing literature, as you explain how you will advance or influence the current circumstances. In other words, instead of presenting paragraphs of literature to ‘set the scene’ for your project, try using the elements of the Project Impact assessment criteria as subheadings. Only refer to relevant literature while you explain how your translational project will address limitations in previous studies, or challenge previously held understandings, thereby positively impacting all beneficiaries. The impact could be around better health outcomes, improved health policy or practice, increased health efficiencies or commercial benefits, depending on your project. Your challenge is to unpack and discuss the impact: what will change, for who, in what way, and what will that mean for the different beneficiary groups?

 

Another difficulty applicants often highlight is that they find it difficult to explain impact before they explain their project (noting that Project Impact is the first assessable criteria, and Project Methodology is the second assessable criteria). If this is you, postpone writing your Project Impact response until you’ve developed the rest of your proposal. However, in conceptualising and planning your proposal, you would ideally know what your intended outcomes would be, so you should be able to explain the potential impact from those outcomes.

 

Your checklist:

• Have you explained what will change because of your project being completed?

  • Common flaw: Section A (for NHMRC-administered MRFF opportunities) is used as a background section rather than discussing project impact.

• Have you provided a response to each of the 4-5 elements included in the Project Impact assessment criteria?

  • Common flaw: proposals don’t explain how consumers or partners have been involved in conceptualising the project and will be involved in leadership positions. Consumer and partner involvement during conceptualisation ensures the project addresses their needs, is culturally and contextually appropriate, and considers barriers and enablers to uptake. These elements increase the sensitivity, safety, accessibility, and feasibility of the intervention, and therefore likely increase the uptake, thus the potential impact.

Tip #4. Upskill on your understanding of what successful MRFF applications look like

The purpose of MRFF funding opportunities differs from NHMRC and ARC, as do the score descriptors and sections of your application. So, whether you’re a seasoned grant winner for non-MRFF opportunities or relatively new to revising an unsuccessful grant application, it’s imperative that you arm yourself with as much knowledge of what a successful MRFF application looks like.

 

You may want to consider reading some of our previous MRFF blogs. For instance:

Avoiding common weaknesses in MRFF applications

MRFF applications: how to align project impact with measures of success

How MRFF applications are assessed: knowing what ‘works well’

 

Your checklist:

• Have you read any successfully funded applications from your chosen stream?

  • Common flaw: applicants don’t investigate whether their research office has a library of successful MRFF applications to view, or whether a trusted colleague is willing to share their successful application.

• Have you sought feedback from respected colleagues who are not in your investigator team?

  • Common flaw: applicants don’t seek feedback from others, despite the benefits of peer review in strengthening how your proposal is presented, reads and is understood.

---

Before you get to work revising your unsuccessful application, consider our final message:

Developing competitive applications takes time, even for seasoned grant winners. While you may have a highly translational proposal that has been co-designed with consumers and partners and which promises substantial impact, unless you can communicate that in written form within the appropriate sections of your application and ensure you address each of the assessable elements within the assessment criteria, you may be scored lower than ideal.