Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    University Transformation
Sign In
Advice

Grant Programs Get Persnickety

By Karen M. Markin October 21, 2015
Careers-Grant Applications
biblioteekje / Creative Commons

To tame a rising tide of grant proposals, federal agencies are becoming sticklers about enforcing their application requirements — stating deadlines in hundredths of seconds and using software to prevent the submission of error-riddled applications.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Careers-Grant Applications
biblioteekje / Creative Commons

To tame a rising tide of grant proposals, federal agencies are becoming sticklers about enforcing their application requirements — stating deadlines in hundredths of seconds and using software to prevent the submission of error-riddled applications.

In announcing grant programs now, a variety of agencies include explicit language warning applicants that failure to follow the guidelines for file names, content, and format could result in the proposal’s being returned without review. It is more important than ever to closely follow all requirements spelled out in a call for proposals and to submit early enough to fix any mistakes caught by the submission system.

Application guidelines are nothing new, but the ferocity with which they are being enforced is. The wrong font size on a proposal could lead to its rejection, forcing the applicant to wait months until the next grant cycle to resubmit. The delay can prove damaging with the tenure and promotion clock ticking.

I have written previously about what federal agencies are doing to cope with the growing number of grant proposals. While applications have increased, agency staff and the pool of prospective reviewers have not, resulting in heavier workloads for those involved in the vetting process. The pool of money has stayed flat, which means investigators have less chance of being funded for a given project.

To reduce frustration and keep the grant process more productive, agencies have adopted practices like limiting the number of grant proposals that an institution or an individual can submit to a particular competition. Agencies also have requested shorter preproposals for some programs — and then invited only the most promising applicants to prepare a full proposal.

Strict adherence to submission criteria is another way that agencies are reducing the application-review workload. Proposals that don’t follow the instructions can be rejected outright. When it’s submission software, rather than a program officer, checking for compliance with format specifications — sometimes called automated compliance — there’s no opportunity for negotiation. Mistakes will prevent you from submitting the proposal, and if you can’t fix the problem before the deadline, you’re out of luck.

Application guidelines are nothing new, but the ferocity with which they are being enforced is.

Don’t expect sympathy from the agencies if your proposal is rejected by their software. It’s a matter of basic fairness to require everyone to follow the same rules; no one will feel guilty that your otherwise brilliant scientific work has been turned down because you used the Palatino font instead of Times New Roman. It is not a gut-wrenching decision, compared with the way reviewers feel when a tight budget means they can support only one of two exciting proposals.

The National Science Foundation’s Research.gov submission portal recently began checking electronically for the inclusion of more than half a dozen documents, including a project summary, a reference list, a biographical sketch, and a budget justification. The absence of any of those documents from an application package will prevent its submission. In addition, the NSF system checks for compliance with regulations governing vertebrate animal and human subjects. Such studies need approval by appropriate campus committees, and the approval date must be included on the grant proposal. If that date is missing from the application, the system will block the submission. Research.gov also determines whether applicants have exceeded the page limit for the budget justification, mentoring plan, and data-management plan.

ADVERTISEMENT

Other agencies have emphasized that compliance with application guidelines will play a major role in their review process. The National Institutes of Health issued a notice several months ago to remind applicants of the importance of preparing applications properly: “To be fair to all concerned the NIH needs to consistently apply standards for application compliance.” Applications that fail to follow NIH instructions can be withdrawn from consideration.

I have noticed similar language in many updated versions of program announcements from other agencies. Sometimes agencies put a warning in red type or in all caps, saying that proposals will be rejected without evaluation for failure to follow submission requirements.

Scientists are sure to be frustrated by all of this emphasis on formatting details. Grant applications have become increasingly complicated, with more components and more rules about what each element needs to include. Faculty want to devote their time to science, not a biosketch, data-management plan or other document. But right now, the only way to get money for your science is to follow the rules. Here are some key ways to avoid administrative rejection:

Submit ahead of time. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says that to satisfy a 5 p.m. deadline, an electronically submitted proposal must be received by 5:00:59. However, the U.S. Department of Education states in one of its publications that its 4:30 p.m. deadline means 4:30:00.

ADVERTISEMENT

Proposal submission is not an Olympic sport, and there is no prize for making a successful submission as close to the deadline as possible. There is, however, a substantial penalty for failure to meet the deadline — rejection of the proposal. In today’s budget climate, it is not unusual for grant programs to be suspended or even eliminated, so you may not get a second chance. Don’t risk throwing away months of work by submitting your proposal at the last second.

Stick to the page limits. Don’t try to dodge them by sneaking scientific material that belongs in the research plan into a section without a page limit or an appendix. NIH warned against that tactic in its notice about application compliance. A recent Department of Defense program announcement also cautioned applicants against including figures, graphs, or diagrams as supporting documents when they really belong in the project narrative. At best, the information will be removed. At worst, the application will not be reviewed.

Read each program announcement carefully. Pay particular attention if you are applying to an agency for the first time. Margin, font size, and typeface restrictions are common, but I was surprised at how they vary across agencies — and even among programs within a given agency.

More than half a dozen agencies require grant proposals to use 12-point Times New Roman font, but it is not currently permitted by NIH, which calls for 11-point type in one of four permissible fonts. However, the agency recently announced changes to this policy that will take effect in late May. NIH allows half-inch margins, but many other agencies require at least one inch. Some agencies also limit the number of lines per vertical inch in proposal narratives (usually 6, but sometimes 5.5).

ADVERTISEMENT

Watch for requirements on how to name and format attachments. Sometimes they need to be PDF files with specific labels. There may also be requirements on where to put page numbers.

Cautions aside, automated compliance can work to your advantage. If you start early, the submission system can identify errors while you still have time to fix them. But don’t depend entirely on these systems. Grants.gov, the most commonly used federal grant submission portal, checks for basic errors, such as missing information, but it does not check for compliance with program-specific requirements. Your proposal can sail through Grants.gov and then be turned down for failing to follow the requirements of the request for applications. There is no substitute for paying close attention to the program announcement.

If you are frustrated by the lack of consistency in these requirements, consider voicing your concerns to federal officials. It is well known that the administrative workload for federally funded researchers has been growing heavier. Agencies periodically request comments when they update policies and publications, and they do make changes in response to some suggestions.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Karen M. Markin
Karen M. Markin is director of research development at the University of Rhode Island’s research office.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Mangan-Censorship-0610.jpg
Academic Freedom
‘A Banner Year for Censorship’: More States Are Restricting Classroom Discussions on Race and Gender
On the day of his retirement party, Bob Morse poses for a portrait in the Washington, D.C., offices of U.S. News and World Report in June 2025. Morse led the magazine's influential and controversial college rankings efforts since its inception in 1988. Michael Theis, The Chronicle.
List Legacy
‘U.S. News’ Rankings Guru, Soon to Retire, Reflects on the Role He’s Played in Higher Ed
Black and white photo of the Morrill Hall building on the University of Minnesota campus with red covering one side.
Finance & operations
U. of Minnesota Tries to Soften the Blow of Tuition Hikes, Budget Cuts With Faculty Benefits
Photo illustration showing a figurine of a football player with a large price tag on it.
Athletics
Loans, Fees, and TV Money: Where Colleges Are Finding the Funds to Pay Athletes

From The Review

A stack of coins falling over. Motion blur. Falling economy concept. Isolated on white.
The Review | Opinion
Will We Get a More Moderate Endowment Tax?
By Phillip Levine
Photo illustration of a classical column built of paper, with colored wires overtaking it like vines of ivy
The Review | Essay
The Latest Awful EdTech Buzzword: “Learnings”
By Kit Nicholls
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The Review | Interview
William F. Buckley Jr. and the Origins of the Battle Against ‘Woke’
By Evan Goldstein

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: A Global Leadership Perspective
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin