How to maximise your chance of being awarded an RSTMH Early Career Grant

This year we had our highest ever number of applications to the Early Career Grants Programme, with just under 3,000 applications. Each year, when the deadline passes, all applications are reviewed to check that they are in English and have two references completed. This year, nearly 16% of applications did not meet these requirements, and were therefore rejected at this stage. After this first review, the applications are each assessed by two separate Global Assessors. Global Assessors (GAs) are experts from around the world, volunteering their time to help shape the careers of researchers and professionals in tropical medicine and global health. The GAs decide whether the application is ‘fundable’ and provide a series of numeric scores relating to each review criteria. These criteria are: 

• Early career status  
• Validity of the research question 
• Quality of the project design and methodology  
• Feasibility of delivering the project outcomes 
• Accuracy and reasonableness of the budget 
• Impact of the research project  
• Value for money 

From this longlist of ‘fundable’ applications, the team at RSTMH look to match each application to a donor.  

Every year, there are some common themes for why applications are rejected. Below, we have compiled some common reasons, and have constructed some recommendations based off these themes, for future applicants. We hope this information will be useful for those unsuccessful applicants from the 2024 application round, as well as for any future applicants. If you have any questions on the information provided, please let me know at greta [dot] holmes [at] rstmh [dot] org.  

Advice for future applicants: 

• Make sure your application is 100% finished before submitting and that it tells a story from start to finish about your proposed research.  
• Ensure your proposal is thorough, well-structured, and leaves no uncertainty about how and what the research will accomplish. Reviewers need to be convinced of the project’s value via clear articulation of objectives, methods and expected outcomes.  
• If you are aware of another individual from your institution applying to the programme, make sure that there is no overlap of information provided – GAs have noted similarities between budgets and methodologies from those in the same organisation. 
• If your project has already been completed or already funded, you are not eligible to apply. 
• The over £5,000 rule on previous funding received is strict – if you state that you have received such amounts, RSTMH’s team will not be able to continue reviewing your application. Please also be aware that our GAs will sometimes carry out some online research on your career history, and if they find clear evidence of a grant received over £5,000, they will reject your application. 
• Explain and justify why/how you are able to carry out specific types of research – evidence previous examples of techniques, and if you haven’t done it before, explain what steps you are taking to learn how to do it. 
  • This is especially important if your study involves any medical practices.  
• Methodology descriptions should be clear, detailed and rigorous, including information on how/when/where data will be collected and analaysed, why the chosen methods are appropriate, and plans to mitigate potential challenges.  
• If you’re focusing on a specific group of people, tell us why.  
• Make sure to justify your budget, explain why you are using these items, and explain the cost if necessary.  
  • For example, if the cost of an item is particularly high in the geographical region of research, explain this.  
  • Where possible, provide descriptions of research completed to ensure best value for money for items included (procurement processes).  
  • If expected costs are detailed in another currency, include information regarding the conversion rate to GBP.  
• Make sure to include ethics approval in your budget if it is necessary to the study, and explain the processes involved to ensure the safety and wellbeing of research participants. 
• Highlight the novelty and potential impact of your work on the field/practice in question; if possible, providing evidence of how the research could lead to substantial benefits in Global Health. Where appropriate, link this to the project's value for money, ensuring your proposed costs are justified in relation to the expected outcomes.  
• For both the project statement and the budget, make sure to use the headings provided in the application form as a guide.  
• Discuss how you will deal with potential challenges. 
• Make use of friends and family to proofread your application, as well as others in your field of research, to ensure it makes sense to GAs who may not be experts in your topic area.  
• Make sure that your topic area fits the scope of the grants programme.  
• Ensure that it is clear in your proposal that you will be able to complete the research alongside any other positions/jobs you may hold, in the appropriate timeframe.  
• Make sure your supervisor has read your application thoroughly, so they are very familiar with it. This will allow them to explain your Early Career status, and comments on your proposal: its feasibility; the budget; the use of resources; the ethical considerations etc.  

Things to avoid – frequent reasons for rejections: 

• The applicant is not considered by the assessor to be an Early Career researcher. Examples of this include individuals who have been involved in many research papers previously, and individuals who are already senior research staff in universities.  
• The applicant has already received research funding for a project worth over £5,000. In some cases, this has been discovered through online research undertaken by the GA.  
• The proposed project has already been funded or the research has already commenced. 
• The overall project design has flaws, and in some cases isn’t suitable for investigating the topic matter.  
• The applicant does not demonstrate a thorough understanding of the literature.  
• The project statement lacks detail.  
• Issues with the methodology; often that it is lacking in detail, isn’t outlined clearly and appropriate justification of methods isn’t provided. 
• Issues with the choice of data analysis techniques for the data in question, or in some cases, a complete lack of information on statistical techniques which will be employed.  
• The research question and/or hypotheses need revision – including proposals considered too specific and others not specific enough. 
• The assessor deems the project to be unfeasible in the stated budget or timeframe – this is often in relevance to the size of the study area/population vs the time and resources available. 
• The proposal includes sections evidently copied from a different proposal (in some cases, other proposals in this grant programme) – several examples were highlighted where budgets referred to items that were completely irrelevant to the study. 
• Literature on the exact topic already exists, and in some instances has been directly plagiarised in the application.  
• The proposed outcomes and reasoning for the study more broadly are unclear or uncompelling. 
• The assessor doesn’t believe the research findings will further knowledge in the field of study or have a significant benefit to the lives of affected individuals.  
• Issues with the budget, including: inflated costs; items don’t match with the methodology; costs fall outside the limits stated in the T&Cs; and costs are not justified/explained.  
• The study is not considered to be good value for money, often in relation to the novelty of the research.  
• The supporting letter from the supervisor doesn’t contain the requested information, and/or may not be signed. In some instances, both references were from the same individual. 
• Ethics approval is not discussed in the project design and/or isn’t included in the budget.  
• The assessor has concerns about the study's ethics and in some cases, a lack of planning for ethical processes.  
• Some proposed studies were considered out of RSTMH’s scope in topic area.