Insights from draft research funding applications: Common feedback and guidance for applicants and peer reviewers

This blog post was authored by a human with the assistance of Microsoft Copilot (GPT5), an AI writing tool, to help structure and articulate the content. It is based on research and analysis as part of the “Developing an Inclusive Research Culture through Improving Research Support Practices” project, funded by the Research England Enhancing Research Culture Fund, and led by Dr Charlotte Stephenson. All interpretations and summaries in this blog post reflect the original human-authored research and report.   

Funders should never be the first to read your proposal. Engaging with peer review ahead of submission - whether formal (e.g. through a Faculty/School Peer Review College) or informal (e.g. reaching out through your networks) - is essential to strengthen your application. Constructive feedback helps identify gaps, improve clarity, and ensure alignment with funder expectations. 

At Leeds University Business School, the Research and Innovation Office supports researchers in developing external funding applications. A key component of this support is the provision of detailed peer review, facilitated through the Faculty Peer Review College (FPRC) and Research and Innovation Office staff. 

As part of our Research-England-funded project - Developing an Inclusive Research Culture through Improving Research Support Practices - we conducted a thematic analysis of 35 draft applications from Leeds University Business School colleagues, developed for 13 different funding calls, including UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) (cross-council), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Leverhulme Trust, and the British Academy. This analysis encompassed 1,409 individual pieces of feedback, provided as part of the Faculty’s peer review process, with each comment coded to a specific theme.  

Key themes 

Across all funders, peer reviewers provided positive feedback on well-written applications, particularly those demonstrating clear structure, appropriate language, and logical flow. However, several recurring themes emerged as areas needing improvement: 

• Clarity: Unclear or vague statements, points, or ideas  

• Explanation/justification: Insufficient explanation or rationale for constructs, methods, or decisions  

• Framing/positioning: Poor paragraph structure or lack of coherent framework  

• Language/writing: Issues with style, grammar, or tone  

• Application requirements: Failure to adhere to funder guidelines  

• Additional information: Missing details or context.  

Advice for applicants 

Drawing on our detailed thematic analysis, we have developed the following evidence-based guidance to help applicants strengthen their proposals and maximise their chances of funding success. This is designed to sit alongside the relevant funder guidance documents, which applicants must read in full, before writing any application. 

Clarity 

• Avoid jargon and ambiguous phrasing 

• Ensure each section clearly communicates its purpose and relevance 

• Write for a non-specialist audience - assume reviewers may not be experts in your field 

Explanation/justification 

• Justify your choice of methods, case studies, and theoretical frameworks 

• Explain why your research matters and how it will be conducted 

• Provide rationale for any assumptions or decisions made 

Framing/positioning 

• Structure your application logically, with clear transitions between sections 

• Group related ideas together to improve readability 

• Use headings and subheadings to guide the reviewer through your narrative 

Language/writing 

• Proofread thoroughly to eliminate grammatical and spelling errors 

• Use concise, active language 

• Tailor your tone to the funder’s expectations - formal but accessible 

Application requirements 

• Ensure your application meets all formatting, word count, and eligibility criteria 

• Explicitly address assessment criteria within your application 

Additional information 

• Include relevant background, context, and supporting data 

• Anticipate reviewer questions and pre-emptively address them 

And when it comes to identifying suitable peer reviewers (if there isn’t an existing peer review process in your School/Faculty), aim to: 

• Choose individuals with experience in securing research funding and/or reviewing for funders (e.g. a member of the ESRC Peer Review College) 

• Seek feedback from both within and outside your discipline for diverse perspectives 

• Allow sufficient time for reviewers to provide thoughtful, detailed feedback. 

Advice for peer reviewers 

For those new to the role of peer reviewer, we have developed the following Peer Review Checklist: 

Understand the funder’s priorities 

• Each funder has a distinct remit and set of expectations. Before reviewing, read the funder’s strategy and call documentation or guidance notes to align your feedback. 

Focus on clarity first 

• Check if the aims, methods, and expected impact are clearly articulated 

• Look for jargon or vague statements 

• Suggest rephrasing where needed to improve readability 

Evaluate framing and positioning 

• Confirm the research is well-situated within existing literature 

• Check that the contribution is clearly stated 

• Assess whether the research questions or hypotheses are compelling and well-justified 

Assess methodological rigour 

• Verify that the approach is appropriate for the research questions 

• Ensure risks and limitations are acknowledged 

• Evaluate the feasibility of the sampling strategy, data collection, and analysis plan  

Consider impact and engagement 
Funders want to know how the research will make a difference: 

• Confirm there is a clear pathway to impact 

• Check that stakeholders or beneficiaries are identified 

• Ensure outputs are tailored to their intended audience 

Be constructive and specific 

• Use a supportive tone: aim to improve, not critique harshly 

• Provide examples or alternatives where possible 

• Highlight strengths as well as areas for improvement 

Tailor your feedback to the scheme 

• Early Career schemes: Focus on feasibility, support, and development 

• Rapid response calls: Emphasise urgency, relevance, and achievable delivery timelines 

• Interdisciplinary calls: Look for integration across fields and clarity in collaboration. 

We hope you find this guidance useful, whether you are preparing a grant application yourself, or have been invited to peer review someone else’s application. If you are a member of Leeds University Business School and would like support in applying for external research funding or want to learn more about the peer review process, visit our SharePoint site and/or contact the Research and Innovation Office (research.lubs@leeds.ac.uk).