Writing instructions for the Natural Fund application

Writing instructions for the Natural Fund application

Just one of my XX graduates who gave me guidance gave me a good news through qq: 'I received an email from the National Fund today, telling me that the National Fund has been funded, huh, huh, 'Thank you, Teacher Lin, you have helped me with the guidance of the tender. Yeah, 'Mr. Lin, you are so powerful. You modified a tender for your colleague last year. '

He applied for a few years without a middle. He sent me his application by email this year. In fact, I don’t understand his content. I am doing synthesis. He has a relationship with biochemistry and traditional Chinese medicine. Therefore, I can’t say the specific content. . However, after reading his application, he felt that there was something wrong with him. He discussed the shortcomings in the application with him and made major changes. Based on my opinion, he was subsidized after repeated revisions.

Last year, a young teacher of our School of Science sent my application to me for advice. I made a lot of comments. He happily repeated the revision and was in the middle. He told me this message for the first time. I was on a business trip in Guangzhou and I was happy for him.

After all, I have written many years of applications, and I have also got some projects. I also review many funds, national, and many provinces and cities every year. So they will review their application from the perspective of a reviewer. So it is a little helpful to mention some changes.

However, I have also read the application forms of the other two young teachers and proposed amendments. They are not in the middle, hehe.

The following points may be noted when writing a National Natural Science Fund application:

1 Innovation is the soul. If the problem is innovative, it is often embarrassed. So when writing this book, be sure to be new in the content. Sometimes for the fund, it will write some conservative points, which is often rejected. If the domestic and foreign literature can detect your innovation, then it will not work. Some people use the word 'first creation'. If the research content you applied for appears in the literature, or the reviewer has already seen the innovation in your application in the literature, then this word will make the reviewer dissatisfied. Explain that you are dishonest or that the literature is incomplete.

2 Feasibility should be clearly written. Some people write the research plan too simple, and people feel that they don't know how to do it. This is very unwise. If people feel that the method he is doing is not feasible, or is not at all, the possibility of not granting is relatively large.

3 The research that has been done must be clearly written. From work to today, what you have done, what articles have been published, and what you have to get your own results must be clearly written. Otherwise, others think that you are blowing, there is no basis for the previous work. In addition, the working conditions of the unit should be written, otherwise let others feel that you have no conditions to complete. Therefore, the applicants of the 'Niu School' 'Sea Turtle' National Key Laboratory 'National Key Discipline' have a high hit rate.

4 The application must be refined, not to write more, each word must be used. Some applications are written too long and too long, as if writing more can explain people. Actually not right, really good content can be clearly stated without too much text. It’s too long, and you’re buried in a lot of unimportant texts. It’s hard to find these wonderful things. You must know that the person who reads the application has to read a lot of books, and it is very good to be succinct and able to make it clear. There must be no errors in the format, especially the format before and after, the reference format, do not have typos. The application is not easy to write, is it necessary to give him financial support?

The reviewers were asked to evaluate a lot of projects in a short period of time. It was not necessary to read a lot of applications to write reviews. It was impossible to see them very carefully. Generally, they should look at the outlines and check the documents. But generally it is evaluated from the above aspects. Innovation, feasibility, and work done have become the basis for their writing.