Rush A J, Gullion C M, Prien R F
Department of Psychiatry at St. Paul, Dallas, TX 75235, USA.
Psychopharmacol Bull. 1996;32(3):311-20.
With research budgets tight and review procedures being streamlined, applicants for research funds, especially newer investigators, may become disheartened. This article provides advice that we believe improves the quality of a written application. We detail ideas for how to develop applications that are complete and most easily understood by reviewers. Important elements include: a focus on selected, specific critical hypotheses that have both clinical and theoretical significance, documenting feasibility, establishing reliable effect sizes, providing specific analyses for each hypothesis, and writing a clear, well-articulated, "reader-friendly" application. In addition, we emphasize the value of collegial review and critique of the application prior to submission. We believe this "curbstone" advice will facilitate a well-reasoned review and if funds are available, eventual funding.
由于研究预算紧张且评审程序简化，科研基金申请者，尤其是新入行的研究者，可能会感到气馁。本文提供了一些建议，我们认为这些建议能提高书面申请的质量。我们详细阐述了如何撰写完整且最易被评审者理解的申请。重要要素包括：专注于选定的、具有临床和理论意义的特定关键假设，证明可行性，确定可靠的效应量，为每个假设提供具体分析，以及撰写一份清晰、条理清晰、“读者友好”的申请。此外，我们强调在提交申请前进行同行评审和批评的价值。我们相信这些“路边石”式的建议将有助于进行合理的评审，并且如果有资金的话，最终获得资助。
