@MarkELindsay asked about my thoughts on good practices and common pitfalls for F31/F32s.
1. The innovation and impact of the science is not evaluated like an R grant. This is hard for sponsors advising to let go. Feasibility, training potential, publishable >> risk.
1/n

2. A clear, specific and individualized picture from the applicant and sponsor about who the applicant is, an honest evaluation of where they are in their training, and their goals is key. Pointing out current weaknesses can be OK here - even makes for strong plan to mitigate 1/n

3. In preparing the grant take the same care and time to meaningfully build a support system and network for the applicant and articulate how it will benefit their scientific accomplishments and training as you do on the Aims. 1/n

4. Although impact is not the key component of the scientific proposal, it must be well crafted nonetheless precisely because it demonstrates strong mentorship. That is, grantsmanship matters. Institutions who run courses for trainees to develop proposals do very well! 1/n

4. (con't). Refer to the real F series expert here - @acorbe2. https://tinyurl.com/yk5uzdh5  https://tinyurl.com/yhmw7lme 

5. As always, make it easy on your reviewers. Easy to read tables of timelines that goes beyond science to other training opportunities, an RCR section that mirrors the exact format requested - these all make it easier to expend our time on the other parts of your proposal. 1/n

6. Jackass reviewers can never be fully avoided. It's awful for your trainee to face the reality that someone can write a review that belittles them or their hard work, has an obnoxious tone and is not aimed at helping the trainee improve. 1/n

Fellowship reviewers - please do better. Keep that trainee in your mind while writing and pretend that they are your trainee. Of course many applicants will not receive the grant, but the how matters. And please fight the Matthew effect of ranking proposals by the sponsor's name!