selected referee comments on "A bold proposal to do something new and interesting",
years 1-3
with added bonus translation
- very speculative, no track record in this area, would be helped by showing preliminary results proving methodology and showing that results will be forthcoming [trans: come on, first do the research then ask for funding, don't you know anything?]
trans: - huh, I never heard of this! Some new stuff. Speculative.
Oy! He wants full postdoc for three years?
Who does this guy think he is? - this is a very competitive research field, very ambitious, not clear work can be done with resources requested. Competitive proposal but not all good proposals can be funded
trans: - oh, yeah, this is supposed to be hot. Prof Joe Doe was just telling me he wants to put that shit-hot new postdoc fellow on this topic, get in on the ground floor, bang out some papers, fast. Tough luck buddy, never heard of you.
Who does this guy think he is? - proposer seems not to be caught up with recent advances in the field, references are dated and there is no mention of recent breakthroughs by other groups. Methodology not in accordance with current state of the art. Poor use of resources to make incremental process.
trans: Heh. Bit late to get on the bandwagon now buddy.
Oh, yes I know about this, shit-hot postdoc fellow from Prof Doe's group just presented on this at the Big Meeting last month.
Yeah they already "published" the key results [claimed they had a paper in prep. cherry picking the plausible key results, based on a semi-analytic estimate].
Who does this guy think he is?
Doh! That sucks.
very speculative, no track record in this area, would be helped by showing preliminary results proving methodology and showing that results will be forthcoming.
All too familiar...and stupid.
[trans: come on, first do the research then ask for funding, don't you know anything?]
Leon Lederman, when he visited my grad school university, clued me in on this scam. It was meant as a humorous anecdote, but IME more than a few NASA proposal reviewers actually seem to think this way.
Lots of proposals get shot down at stages one and two. I haven't seen so many that survive to stage three.
As far as I can tell, the key to successful research funding is getting your research one cycle ahead of your funding cycle, so that you can finish the research you're seeking funding for before you know if the rant comes through. Building up this one project head start is the tricky part.
You forgot #4:
I'm sorry to turn you down, but I love someone else...."
Lab Lemming: ...before you know if the rant comes through
Inspired typo.
Of course, the risk is that you'll get a reviewer who thinks it can't be done, not realizing that you already did it. In Lederman's anecdote, this is what led to the apocryphal PI revealing his technique to the reviewer.