More than 56 characters in the title.

Not responding to an RFP or Program Announcement.

Failing to select the most appropriate funding mechanism.

Incomplete form.

No original signature page.

Insufficient number of copies.

Carefully select your title. It should reflect project specifics (e.g., "Treating the Female Alcoholic"). 

With equal care, select from among the dozens of program announcements listed on the NIAAA homepage.Adhere to program announcement guidelines.

Select the appropriate funding mechanism and submission dates. Check out NIH's Center for Scientific Review for more information.

Talk to a Project Officer; access NIH homepage at Institutes and Offices and search for likely contacts. 

Examine NIAAA Homepage and other related sites (e.g., NIDA Homepage or NIMH Homepage) for information related to your research topic.

READ the instructions several times. Failure to comply could result in failure to reach the review level.

Completed as a last-minute detail.

Incomplete or lacking in sufficient detail.

Abstract is unclear, contains only minor details, and/or doesn't relate to proposed work.

Proposed work overlaps institute priorities (e.g., research on cigarette smoking can be funded by NIAAA, NCI, NIDA, NICHD, NHLBI).

Assignment to review committees is based on the information on the face page and the content of the abstract.

Use keywords to direct your application to the most appropriate study section (e.g., "Tobacco Use as a Model of Drug Self-Administration" or "Cigarette Smoking and Alcohol Use"). 

Using terms such as "substance abuse" and "addictions" will provide clues to NIH staff when determining which Institute and what review section you will be assigned to for action. Assignment of a study section is an important aspect of the peer review process.

No justification provided.

Costs are inappropriate.

Large equipment requests in the final year of the project.

Budget exceeds the allowable period. 

Use of consultants with no clear role in the project. 

Using an expert as the PI or co-PI with no clear role in the project.

Fully justify all costs - no matter how small or insignificant, e.g., travel for subjects to attend sessions at a rural medical facility at 50 participants x $ .31 per mile + $2.50 bridge toll x number of miles. 

Be sure that the costs are accurate and fully justified.

Propose Co-PI and/or consultants when there is a clear need. Avoid using "big" names unless there is a compelling reason for their participation.

Can you do the study for the proposed amount? Is the budget too large, too small? Have an experienced colleague review your costs – check with NIH grantees, using CRISP database, and ask for a review of the budget. 

Contact the OSP and ask for guidance.

Most principal investigators and offices of sponsored programs are pleased to provide a few minutes of assistance to a new investigator.

Exceeds the 2-page limit.

Lacks critical detail on education and relevant experience. 

Took a back seat to the research proposal.

Reviewers frequently initiate their review with the biographical sketch. 

Failing to take time to include relevant training, recent articles, published articles accepted, articles under review, prior grants, etc., can result in a lack of confidence in your ability to conduct the proposed research.

Items mentioned do not relate to the proposed effort. 

Items are in a location not mentioned earlier in the application.

Carefully list all facilities and resources that will be available to you as you go about completing each phase of your research.

State location if other than your home institution and provide proof of access to facilities and resources. Copies of letters of support, Memorandum of Understanding, etc. are helpful items.

Failure to discuss pilot work.

Failure to discuss the basis for the proposed work.

Uncritical acceptance of referenced literature.

Misquotes prior studies.

List all prior work conducted by you or your co-PIs related to the proposed effort. 

Conduct a critical review of the most recent research literature.

For more database options, check out the National Library of Medicine and the National Library of Congress. Take a look at other on-line libraries, perhaps your university or institution is a member of this exceptional collection of periodicals.

Obtain proceedings from recent important professional meetings.

Use care in constructing the underpinning for your proposed research.

Failure to discuss the applied or theoretical significance of the proposed problem.

State clearly and concisely how the proposed work will benefit your field of science.

What new knowledge will be gained?

Why is it important to do this work?

Will it have clinical significance?

Failure to adequately support the proposed effort.

Originality unclear.

Is the proposed work a reasonable next step for your field?

Does it build on earlier findings? 

Has this work been done before?

What is unique about your approach or method?

Failure to recognize alternative perspectives.

Research objectives unclear.

Development of potentially untestable models.

Raises problems, but fails to adequately address them.

Fails to determine sample size using power analysis.

Development of a new instrument when existing instruments are well accepted.

Recruitment and retention problems.

The discussion on analysis is inadequate, incorrect, or missing.

It is important to recognize that alternative strategies may be worth examining; if not, you need to address the question of why you chose one approach over another by listing problem(s).

It is a good idea to pilot test novel or controversial models.

Never make excuses about why something was not addressed; find an answer or explanation.

Conduct a power analysis.

Explain how your instrument will improve on existing instruments.

Provide pilot data.

Spell out recruitment and retention strategies; obtain letters supporting access; cite strategies from the literature that overcome problems.

Find the most skilled biostatistician and have them give you a careful review.

Bring them on board if they add strength to the proposal.

Carefully read the whole proposal: Is it logical; are the sections connected to each other, e.g., does the approach directly relate to your stated problem(s); will the approach lead to valid and reliable data; is the analysis appropriate?

Fails to address the inclusion of women and minorities.

Risks not adequately addressed.

Informed consent missing or inadequate.

IRB review missing.

NIH requires that you address the inclusion of women and minorities.

Take a look at the NIH homepage under the Office of the Director, Office of Protection from Research Risk.

Any project requiring the use of humans must be submitted to your home institution IRB to determine its status (e.g., exempt or non-exempt) and the need for review.

IRB missing.

Risk not adequately addressed.

Non-animal models available.

Species a problem.

Projects using vertebrate animals must be reviewed by your home institution, Institutional Animal Care, and Use Committee.

Refer to the NIH Homepage, Office of the Director, Office of Protection from Research Risk for instructions.

Budget errors.

Grammar and spelling errors.

Lack of experience with proposed methods.

Develop a spreadsheet in Excel, Lotus, etc., to ensure that no math errors occur. 

Carefully edit for typos or transpositions. 

Better yet, use an electronic version of the PHS 398 and avoid this problem. Check your Office of Sponsored Programs for a copy.

Do not self-edit. Have at least two others read the full application.

If you lack expertise, find a colleague or a consultant with a strong resume of experience and add to the project.

This is the most serious of errors. It is essential that you carefully design a proposal that reflects your best thinking. A well-written proposal with few if any weaknesses can still go unfunded if the reviewers believe that the work is careless, makes unsupported assumptions, and/or indicates a bias.

Propose only what can be realistically accomplished given all the unexpected problems and demands on your life. Ask a colleague with experience to help you develop a management plan and a realistic timeline.

Good work, nice design, but so what? What are the next steps? Can you speculate about what will be done once this project is completed, e.g., publication of data, reapplication to further the study?