Converging paths: the art and science of writing health research grants and papers

In the world of academia, researchers often find themselves engaged in both scientific publication and grant writing. While these two forms of communication share common features, they also have distinct characteristics that set them apart.

When it comes to securing research grants, many researchers approach the process with a mindset similar to that of publishing scientific papers. This may seem like a logical approach, but it is not enough to ensure successful funding for your research endeavours.

Approaching a grant application solely from the perspective of a researcher publishing their findings overlooks key aspects that funders require.

To delve into this topic, I have invited Maria Machado, an expert in scientific article writing and reviewing, to share her insights. Maria is a writer, reviewer, analyst, and blogger. Throughout her scientific career, she researched vascular physiology. Now, she specializes in scientific papers, research design, and science communication, trying to demistify the academic publishing process (https://stories4sci.blogspot.com/).

And it is precisely because our target and mission are so similar, albeit from two different perspectives, that I decided to involve her in this joint blog post.

Together, we have firstly explored the commonalities and differences between scientific publications and research grants.

Similarities between research grants and scientific papers

1. Foundation in robust research: Both a research grant and a scientific paper are grounded in solid research and a deep understanding of the field. They require a critical analysis of the literature that identifies a research gap, a clear rationale for the research, and a strong grasp of the appropriate methodology.

2. Importance of clarity and precision: Effective communication is vital in both research grants and scientific papers. Both of them need to be written clearly and concisely. This means using clear language and avoiding jargon, as well as presenting the key concepts in a logical and easy-to-understand way. Every word must be chosen carefully to convey the complex ideas and methodologies involved in research.

3. Structured format: Both types of documents follow a structured format, with grants typically having prescribed sections (e.g. objectives, methodology, work plan and impact) and scientific papers following the IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion).

4. Review Process: The review process for scientific papers involves peer review by experts in the field, whereas grant proposals undergo rigorous evaluation by funding agencies or review panels. This scrutiny ensures that only high-quality work is funded or published.

Differences between research grants and scientific papers

1. Purpose and audience: While scientific papers are primarily aimed at communicating research findings to the scientific community, research grants are designed to secure funding for proposed research projects. They need to be understandable by experts in the field, funding body administrators, and research managers.

2. Scope and content: A grant proposal outlines a plan for future research, including objectives, methodology, and potential impact. A scientific paper, conversely, presents completed research, showcasing how the data and findings contribute to the field of research.

3. Style and persuasion: Grant proposals involves more persuasive and forward-looking language to convince funding agencies of the significance and potential impact of the proposed research. Scientific papers, on the other hand, focus on presenting empirical findings and discussing their implications within the context of existing knowledge.

The intersection of scientific papers and research grants

In drafting the blog post structure and contents, me and Maria engaged in an insightful discussion, exploring the nuances and unique aspects inherent in scientific papers and grant applications. Our reflections were particularly related to:

- Impact and implications

A pivotal aspect in research grants is the articulation of the research impact. I asked Maria if and how researchers describe the impact of their research in qualitative and quantitative terms within publications. She clarifies that in papers, particularly in the discussion section, authors need to address the limitations of their study and the implications for disease treatments. Furthermore, the conclusion should highlight the study's main contributions and suggest next steps for peers in the field.

For example, a paper detailing an observational study might suggest that its findings could be more definitively tested through a randomized controlled trial. This approach not only underscores the study's immediate impact but also charts a path for further inquiry, propelling the field forward.

- Dissemination and communication aspects

Another aspect I was curios about is related to how dissemination and communication of research findings are handled in scientific articles, Maria points out that authors must disclose prior presentations of the study at conferences or other venues. However, the detailed dissemination plan is more commonly a feature of grant applications, where researchers must explicitly describe how they will make their project results known to both experts and the wider society. This section of the grant applications often poses challenges for researchers, as it requires foresight into the implications and future usage of findings that have not yet been realized.

- Open Science and data availability

In our discussion, we touched upon the emerging trend of open access and open science practices being required in grant proposals. This is mirrored in scientific articles through data availability statements, which should be included to inform readers about where and how they can access the data supporting the research findings. Such transparency is crucial for reproducibility and trust in scientific research.

- Collaborative dynamics and researcher profiles

We also had a discussion on collaboration in scientific articles, compared to grant application. Maria notes that there is a format to specify each author’s contribution to the work in scientific publication. Conversely, I highlighted that grant applications often have dedicated sections to detail consortium composition and demonstrate the capability and balance of the team, with evidence of competencies and resources. This contrast underscores the different emphases placed on individual qualifications in grants versus the collective expertise presented in scientific papers.

- Peer review process

Finally, the conversation steers towards peer review processes. Maria's insights from her blog post, "#LoveMethods24: The Peer Review Conundrum", can be woven into this section. She discusses the challenges and biases inherent in the peer review process, the role of open peer review, and the innovative concept of registered reports in clinical research. I added that blind review processes are being piloted in some funding programs, which align with the practices of some journals to eliminate bias. My blog post “The chicken and egg dilemma ” delved into this.

Conclusion

While research grants and scientific papers share common ground in their reliance on academic rigour and clear communication, they necessitate distinct approaches to writing and presentation. Understanding these differences is vital for researchers who wish to excel in both areas. Here, we hope to equip researchers with a deeper understanding of these distinct forms of communication. By recognizing the specific requirements and adapting your writing to the context, you can increase your chances of securing funding and publishing your work.

Photo by Sophie Dale on Pexels