Introduction
Postdoctoral fellowships support research, and frequently career development training,
to enhance your potential to becoming a productive, independent investigator. Securing
a fellowship sends a strong signal that you are capable of conducting fundable research
and will likely lead to successes with larger grants. Writing a fellowship will also
increase your productivity and impact because you will learn and refine skills necessary
to articulate your research priorities. However, competition is fierce and your fellowship
application needs to stand out among your peers as realistic, coherent, and compelling.
Also, reviewers, a committee of experts and sometimes non-experts, will scrutinize
your application, so anything less than polished may be quickly eliminated. We have
drawn below ten tips from our experiences in securing postdoctoral fellowships to
help as you successfully tackle your proposal.
Rule 1: Start Early and Gather Critical Information
Crafting a competitive fellowship can take 6–9 months, so it is imperative that you
start early. You may even want to start looking for postdoctoral fellowships before
you finish your doctoral degree. Compile a comprehensive list of fellowships that
you can apply to. This list should include key information to organize your game plan
for applying, including Sponsor (agency sponsoring the fellowship) name; URL for funding
information; Sponsor deadlines; and any other requirements or critical information.
To find suitable fellowships, start by asking your faculty mentor(s), laboratory colleagues,
and recent alumni about their experiences applying for fellowships. Federal agencies
in the United States, such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) and National
Science Foundation (NSF); foreign governmental agencies; and other organizations,
such as societies, foundations, and associations, often solicit fellowship applications.
Additionally, many institutions offer internally supported fellowships as well as
institutional research training grants.
Once you have an exhaustive list of fellowships you are eligible for, start gathering
critical information that you can use to inform your writing. Read the fellowship
instructions completely and identify the review criteria. Investigate the review process;
NIH’s Center for Scientific Review reviews grant applications for scientific merit
and has a worthwhile video about the Peer Review Process [1]. Sometimes Sponsors offer
notification alerts about upcoming funding opportunities, deadlines, and updated policies,
so make sure to sign up for those when offered. Also, gather previously submitted
applications and reviewers’ comments for the fellowships you will to apply to. Both
funded and unfunded applications are useful. Sometimes Sponsors make available funded
abstracts like NIH’s Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT), and these
provide critical information about the scope of funded projects.
Many institutions have internal policies and processes that are required before a
proposal can be submitted to a Sponsor. These requirements can include waivers to
assess eligibility and internal deadlines (five business day internal deadlines are
standard), so make sure you also gather relevant information about any internal policies
and processes required by your institution.
Rule 2: Create a Game Plan and Write Regularly
Writing a compelling fellowship takes time, a lot of time, which is challenging to
balance with a hectic laboratory schedule, other responsibilities, and family obligations.
To reduce stress, divide the fellowship requirements into smaller tasks by creating
a detailed timeline with goals or milestones. Having a game plan with daily and/or
weekly goals will also help you avoid procrastination. Make sure you are writing regularly
(i.e., daily or every other day) to establish an effective writing practice. This
will increase your productivity and reduce your anxiety because writing will become
a habit. It is also important to make your writing time non-negotiable so other obligations
or distractions don’t impede your progress.
Rule 3: Find Your Research Niche
It is crucial that you have a deep awareness of your field so you can identify critical
knowledge gaps that will significantly move your field forward when filled. Keep a
list of questions or problems inherent to your field and update this list after reading
germane peer-reviewed and review articles or attending seminars and conferences. Narrow
down and focus your list through discussions with your mentor(s), key researchers
in your field, and colleagues. Because compelling projects often combine two seemingly
unrelated threads of work to challenge and shift the current research or clinical
practice paradigms, it is important to have a broad familiarity with the wider scientific
community as well. Seek opportunities to attend seminars on diverse topics, speak
with experts, and read broadly the scientific literature. Relentlessly contemplate
how concepts and approaches in the wider scientific community could be extended to
address critical knowledge gaps in your field. Furthermore, develop a few of your
research questions by crafting hypotheses supported by the literature and/or preliminary
data. Again, share your ideas with others, i.e., mentor(s), other scientists, and
colleagues, to gauge interest in the significance and innovation of the proposed ideas.
Remember, because your focus is on writing a compelling fellowship, make sure your
research questions are also relevant and appropriate for the missions of the sponsoring
agencies.
Rule 4: Use Your Specific Aims Document as Your Roadmap
A perfectly crafted Specific Aims document, usually a one-page description of your
plan during the project period, is crucial for a compelling fellowship because your
reviewers will read it! In fact, it is very likely your Specific Aims will be the
first document your reviewers will read, so it is vital to fully engage the reviewers’
interest and desire to keep reading. The Specific Aims document must concisely answer
the following questions:
Is the research question important? Compelling proposals often tackle a particular
gap in the knowledge base that, when addressed, significantly advance the field.
What is the overall goal? The overall goal defines the purpose of the proposal and
must be attainable regardless of how the hypothesis tests.
What specifically will be done? Attract the reviewers’ interest using attention-getting
headlines. Describe your working hypothesis and your approach to objectively test
the hypothesis.
What are the expected outcomes and impact? Describe what the reviewers can expect
after the proposal is completed in terms of advancement to the field.
A draft of your Specific Aims document is ideal for eliciting feedback from your mentor(s)
and colleagues because evaluating a one-page document is not an enormous time investment
on part of the person giving you feedback. Plus, you don’t want to invest time writing
a full proposal without knowing the proposal’s conceptual framework is compelling.
When you are ready to write the research plan, your Specific Aims document then provides
a useful roadmap.
As you are writing (and rewriting) your Specific Aims document, it is essential to
integrate the Sponsor’s goals for that fellowship funding opportunity. Often goals
for a fellowship application include increasing the awardee’s potential for becoming
an independent investigator, in which case an appropriate expected outcome might be
that you mature into an independent investigator.
We recommend reading The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook (www.grantcentral.com)
[2] because it has two helpful chapters on how to write a persuasive Specific Aims
document, as well as other instructive chapters. Although a little formulaic, the
Workbook’s approach ensures the conceptual framework of your Specific Aims document
is solid. We also advise reading a diverse repertoire of Specific Aims documents to
unearth your own style for this document.
Rule 5: Build a First-Rate Team of Mentors
Fellowship applications often support mentored training experiences; therefore, a
strong mentoring team is essential. Remember, reviewers often evaluate the qualifications
and appropriateness of your mentoring team. The leader of your mentoring team should
have a track record of mentoring individuals at similar stages as your own as well
as research qualifications appropriate for your interests. Reviewers will also often
consider if your mentor can adequately support the proposed research and training
because fellowship applications don’t always provide sufficient funds. It is also
useful to propose a co-mentor who complements your mentor’s qualifications and experiences.
You should also seek out other mentors at your institution and elsewhere to guide
and support your training. These mentors could form an advisory committee, which is
required for some funding opportunities, to assist in your training and monitor your
progress. In summary, a first-rate mentoring team will reflect the various features
of your fellowship, including mentors who augment your research training by enhancing
your technical skills as well as mentors who support your professional development
and career planning.
As you develop your fellowship proposal, meet regularly with your mentors to elicit
feedback on your ideas and drafts. Your mentors should provide feedback on several
iterations of your Specific Aims document and contribute to strengthening it. Recruit
mentors to your team who will also invest in reading and providing feedback on your
entire fellowship as an internal review before the fellowship’s due date.
You also want to maintain and cultivate relationships with prior mentors, advisors,
or colleagues because fellowships often require three to five letters of reference.
A weak or poorly written letter will negatively affect your proposal’s fundability,
so make sure your referees will write a strong letter of recommendation and highlight
your specific capabilities.
Rule 6: Develop a Complete Career Development Training Plan
Most fellowships support applicants engaged in training to enhance their development
into a productive independent researcher. Training often includes both mentored activities,
e.g., regular meetings with your mentor(s), as well as professional activities, e.g.,
courses and seminars. It is important that you describe a complete training plan and
justify the need for each training activity based on your background and career goals.
When developing this plan, it is helpful to think deeply about your training needs.
What skills or experiences are missing from your background but needed for your next
career stage? Try to identify three to five training goals for your fellowship and
organize your plan with these goals in mind. Below are sample activities:
Regular (weekly) one-on-one meetings with mentor(s)
Biannual meeting with advisory committee
Externship (few weeks to a few months) in a collaborator’s laboratory to learn a specific
technique or approach
Courses (include course # and timeline) to study specific topics or methods
Seminars focused on specific research areas
Conferences to disseminate your research and initiate collaborations
Teaching or mentoring
Grant writing, scientific writing, and oral presentation courses or seminars
Opportunities for gaining leadership roles
Laboratory management seminars or experiences
Rule 7: STOP! Get Feedback
Feedback is critical to developing a first-class proposal. You need a wide audience
providing feedback because your reviewers will likely come from diverse backgrounds
as well. Be proactive in asking for feedback from your mentor, colleagues, and peers.
Even non-scientists can provide critical advice about the clarity of your writing.
When eliciting feedback, inform your reviewer of your specific needs, i.e., you desire
broader feedback on overall concepts and feasibility or want advice on grammar and
spelling. You may also consider hiring a professional editing and proofreading service
to polish your writing.
Some fellowships have program staff, such as the NIH Program Officers, who can advise
prospective applicants. These individuals can provide essential information and feedback
about the programmatic relevance of your proposal to the Sponsor’s goals for that
specific fellowship application. Approaching a Program Officer can be daunting, but
reading the article “What to Say—and Not Say—to Program Officers” can help ease your
anxiety [3].
Rule 8: Tell a Consistent and Cohesive Story
Fellowship applications are often composed of numerous documents or sections. Therefore,
it is important that all your documents tell a consistent and cohesive story. For
example, you might state your long term goal in the Specific Aims document and personal
statement of your biosketch, then elaborate on your long term goal in a career goals
document, so each of these documents must tell a consistent story. Similarly, your
research must be described consistently in your abstract, Specific Aims, and research
strategy documents. It is important to allow at least one to two weeks of time after
composing the entire application to review and scrutinize the story you tell to ensure
it is consistent and cohesive.
Rule 9: Follow Specific Requirements and Proofread for Errors and Readability
Each fellowship application has specific formats and page requirements that must be
strictly followed. Keep these instructions and the review criteria close at hand when
writing and revising. Applications that do not conform to required formatting and
other requirements might be administratively rejected before the review process, so
meticulously follow all requirements and guidelines.
Proofread your almost final documents for errors and readability. Errors can be confusing
to reviewers. Also, if the documents have many misspellings or grammar errors, your
reviewers will question your ability to complete the proposed experiments with precision
and accuracy. Remove or reduce any field-specific jargon or acronyms. Review the layout
of your pages and make sure each figure or table is readable and well placed. Use
instructive headings and figure titles that inform the reviewers of the significance
of the next paragraph(s) or results. Use bolding or italics to stress key statements
or ideas. Your final documents must be easy to read, but also pleasing, so your reviewers
remain engaged.
Rule 10: Recycle and Resubmit
Fellowships applications frequently have similar requirements, so it is fairly easy
to recycle your application or submit it to several different funding opportunities.
This can significantly increase your odds for success, especially if you are able
to improve your application with each submission by tackling reviewers’ comments from
a prior submission. However, some Sponsors limit concurrent applications to different
funding opportunities, so read the instructions carefully.
Fellowship funding rates vary but, sadly, excellent fellowships may go unfunded. Although
this rejection stings, resubmitted applications generally have a better success rate
than original applications, so it is often worth resubmitting. However, resubmitting
an application requires careful consideration of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.
If available, speak to your Program Officers because he or she may have listened to
the reviewers’ discussion and can provide a unique prospective or crucial information
not included in the reviewers’ written comments. Resubmitted fellowships are many
times allowed an additional one- to two-page document to describe how you addressed
the reviewers’ comments in the revised application, and this document needs to be
clear and persuasive.
Conclusion
The ten tips we provide here will improve your chances of securing a fellowship and
can be applied to other funding opportunity announcements like career development
awards (i.e., NIH K Awards). Regardless of funding outcomes, writing a fellowship
is an important career development activity because you will learn and refine skills
that will enhance your training.