CME Series: Article 3: Writing a Good Research Proposal: Avoiding mistakes and Addressing reviewers ’comments Kumar Neeta1,*, Kumar Sanjiv2,3 1Department of Pathology, Faculty of Dentistry, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India 2Director, International Institute of Health Management Research, New Delhi 3Adjunct Professor, International Clinical Epidemiology Network, Delhi, India *Corresponding Author: Dr Neeta Kumar*, E-Mail: kumar_neeta@hotmail.com
Online published on 26 June, 2019. Abstract The screening of research proposals by reviewers in research committees in academic institutions and funding agencies highlight the problems that occur in the proposals. Most are common and avoidable. Others are specific related to the training, experience and writing style. The present paper provides a review of these problems and intends to guide young researchers on how to avoid and minimize the common mistakes in proposal writing and learn the art of addressing reviewers ’comments. This feedback will help them in getting early approval of a research proposal and enhance chances of securing funding. This will also be useful to new reviewers to strengthen their peer reviewing skills. Most common mistakes are noticed in methodology section where young researchers miss out details regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size, randomization, mechanisms to monitor the quality during data collection and validation of research instruments. Information on study location, duration, frequency of data collection, and applicability of the study is often missing. Researchers often do not define disease condition under study, treatment regimen being followed, scoring and classification criteria, and dependent and independent variables. It is imperative that methodology section has all the details required to replicate a study by an independent researcher. Introduction lacks clarity and direction while review of literature section is often poorly written reflecting absence of critical evaluation of the existing literature to highlight the gaps in knowledge. Investigators often do not provide timeline, work plan, collaborators, budget and feasibility especially in a non funded project. This may be interpreted by the reviewers as lack of necessary planning for a good quality research. Both, the reviewers and researchers, are expected to maintain professional conduct throughout the peer review process and during conduct of the research for the benefit of public whose health is affected and policy makers who will make informed decisions based on the results from the research. Top Keywords Research, Proposal, problems, mistakes, content issues, criteria, methodology, title, research question, sample size, study design, quality, peer review, reviewer. Top |