A: Overall:
• Keep it extremely feasible. More feasible than you think you have to. K's are often hit for being "too ambitious."
• Have no more than 3 specific aims. Reviewers want to see a simple story.
• Have pilot data. Making links between your previous work and the work you propose in the K establishes a flow of continuity through your career development and allows you to use your previous research as pilot data. (You can probably spin just about any work you've ever done to sound like pilot data for the award.)
• The award is about getting the training that will advance your career. The project is a chance to use that training, so make sure that you're incorporating your training into your research plan, e.g., if you propose to learn a statistical technique, include that technique in your proposed analyses.

Title and Abstract:
• It should communicate clearly what you propose to do.
• It may determine which study section it will go to (so gear it to go where you want ñ use relevant buzz words).
• It may determine who is asked to review your proposal (so tailor it to your committee).
• Reviewers will rely heavily on the abstract when providing a summary in front of the committee (so give them good things to say).

Specific aims:
• Have no more than 3 specific aims. Reviewers want to see a simple story.
• Keep it more feasible than you think you have to.
• Ideally your specific aims will fit on 1 page.
• Include a brief introductory paragraph to lay out the rationale.
• Clearly state your hypotheses or questions. Make sure they are testable and that you can test each of them within the confines of your grant.
• It's a good idea to boldface the aims and if you have space, to use wider (e.g., hanging) margins for this section so that people can write comments.
• Ideally, you'll want pilot data for each of your specific aims. If you have questions you want to test for which you have no pilot data and which may be difficult to get, these should be described as secondary aims.
• Direction: for NIMH currently, it's useful to make sure you address a highly prevalent mental health problem that is clearly important, and to note that you've done so. It's also useful to clearly show how you are likely to have high impact on this problem.
• The specific aims should not be dependent on each other; if hypotheses for Specific Aim 1 are not confirmed, it should still be useful to examine Specific Aim 2.

Background:
• The goal of the background is to make a strong case in the reader's mind for why your topic is important and why your question is interesting.
• Give road signs to help the reviewer help follow your argument.
• If possible follow the organization of the specific aims.
• Review relevant literature. Reviewers will not be experts in your area; this section should give such individuals just what they need to know.
• Consider citing literature by members of the study section likely to review your grant.
• Reviewers appreciate citations in text (not reference #'s).
• Be accurate in your citations — you can lose points if you aren't.
• Make sure to include recent studies in your review.
• At the end, summarize what is known and where gaps in the knowledge base are.
• It's useful to say what important information will be gleaned both if your hypotheses are confirmed and if they are not confirmed.

Preliminary data:
• Have preliminary data that demonstrates the feasibility of your method and shows that your hypotheses are promising.
• Show figures of the data you've collected. The figures should be easily readable, correctly labeled/annotated, referenced in the text, and described in a figure heading. Be sure that descriptions of the figures match what's in them.
• Making links between your previous work and the work you propose in the K establishes a flow of continuity through your career and allows you to use your previous research as pilot data.
• It's often useful to organize your preliminary data in terms of your specific aims.
• At the end of the preliminary data, the reader should have an idea of exactly what your questions are, what your hypotheses are, and what your design is likely to be. There should be no surprises in the design.
• Highlight how the data was collected or analyzed in conjunction with your consultants so as to build up the impression that you have a good research team.

Research Design:
• The design should follow clearly from your background and preliminary data. It should be clear how each of the specific aims are addressed by the design.
• Feel free to have a relatively small manageable design. It doesn't have to be huge (often smaller is better).
• Recap the overview (reviewers may not read in 1 sitting).
• Put in a time-line. A chart is useful in justifying a 5-year study.
• Be specific about the # of subjects to be included, inclusion and exclusion criteria. (Note: Avoid inconsistencies!)
• Carefully describe your methods.
• Predictions with graphs are favorably reviewed. If you can't do this, the design may be too complicated.
• Make sure to provide a conceptual/theoretical rationale for your predictions.
• Make sure that your proposed analyses specifically address your aims and hypotheses.
• You should include power analyses.
• Having a limitations and design alternatives/roads-not-taken section is often very well received and heads off negative comments before they're made. Showing awareness of your limitations is a good thing. Just don't argue too persuasively against yourself...

Conclusion:
• Briefly summarize what you're proposing.
• End on an optimistic note. It's the last thing reviewers will see of your grant.

Appendices:
• The appendix is NOT part of the electronic materials sent to reviewers.
• Do not put your glossary of terms in the appendix.
• Include articles that will help reviewers to understand the details of the project.
• Don't expect all reviewers to read the appendices. They may not even be required to look at them.
• If you're developing a treatment, I've heard that it's useful to submit the actual treatment manual (25-150 pgs) as an appendix. This is not a substitute for describing the intervention in the grant.

Style:
• Your proposal will be read by 3 people, some of whom may be only relatively familiar with your topic.
• They are your advocates before the committee, so make them like you.
• Help them understand what you propose.
• Don't annoy them with inconsistencies, typos, errors, arrogance, narrow margins and a small font.
• Pick a topic that you can "pitch" in 30 seconds or less. The primary reviewer of your proposal has only a few minutes to make that same pitch to the committee.
• If you use abbreviations, have a glossary.
• In the reference section, include all authors of referenced papers.
• Remember: Font, line spacing, wide margins, figures, charts, tables, avoid inconsistencies.
• Make it easy to read, enjoyable to read, pleasing to the eye, and be sure it makes sense. All this figures into the review, because if reviewers are frustrated or bothered by the format they may find reasons to criticize the grant. If they enjoyed reading it, they may be more likely to fund it.