Online form for National Sigma Xi grants-in-aid of research, due March 15 or October 15.

Given that reviews are not returned with Sigma Xi grants-in-aid of research applications that are declined, I thought it might be useful to give out some tips that might help in preparing future applications.

Applications are generally judged on the following items, generally in order of importance from most to least:

I address each of these in turn.

Particularly in ecology/ evolution/ systematics/ behavior, the first of these is nearly always the reason a proposal is declined. You should be doing novel, interesting, hypothesis-based research. There are some particular projects that everybody and his/ her brother seem to be doing, and these projects are generally not favored. Basically, it involves doing exactly the same study in yet-another-species-group for a reason that is not clear to people who don't work on that species group. Specific examples:

You all know this- these are the papers that you see over and over and over and over again in journals. Now, that's not to say these can't be quite interesting questions, or that you shouldn't study them. However, to get funding for them at Sigma Xi or elsewhere, you need an angle. Your species or group must be uniquely suited to address some broader ecological/ evolutionary/ behavioral question, not just be something that is cool or lives in an area you want to visit.

For example, let's say that temperature-dependent sex-determination (TDSD) is something that is very rare in most groups, but you want to test if it arose multiple times in turtles. You think it might have, and a reason for that is because, unlike other reptiles, turtles can XXX. Knowing the phylogeny of a group of turtles can help to determine if TDSD arose multiple times or just once, and your question is now broad. Mention that knowing this information leads to further research on why it would have arisen multiple times in this group, suggesting turtles are somehow unique among reptiles. Good, broad, hypothesis-based research.

Warning: DON'T B.S. Reviewers see right through that. Don't dig up some random feature of the species your studying and try to make it sound like a broad question, as it will only annoy them. Indeed, if you can't think of a broader significance to your study, you may want to re-evaluate the direction you are pursuing, as you will encounter the same problem later as well.

For systematics/ evolution, the level of significance should extend AT LEAST to the class level, if not higher (phylum/ kingdom/ all species). If your project will explain a phenomenon seen in most mammalian species, that's great, but if it's something specific to a group of canids, that may not be good enough.

Have a clear hypothesis you are testing, and make sure it is broadly significant. 'Nuff said.

It's important that you say how you'll figure these things out, too. Be as specific as you can given the space limitation, including sample size and all required primary methods. If you're doing systematics on a particular gene, mention that you have the primers isolated and will be sequencing the Xxx gene on an ABI 377. If it's a nuclear gene, mention if you plan to clone it to sequence possible heterozygotes. Why did you pick this gene?

Make sure that your methods are the best way to address your question, or if not, mention why you can't do it the "right" way. If the reviewer can come up with a better way to address your question and you don't say it, your grant will be rejected.

Also, be very careful to avoid any errors. Errors in methods are the second-most common reason for rejection. These errors can come from failing to mention something or saying something incorrect. Similarly, if your sample size is too small, reviewers balk at that. Think of sample size in the relevant scale: if you're comparing trees in 2 populations that have an ecological difference, and you're surveying 10 trees in each population, your relevant sample size is 2 (or 1 each), not 20.

Mention how you might avoid confounding factors, if appropriate. If you're studying 10 populations to examine the effects of local temperature differences on age structure, address other potential confounding variables. Are they at the same latitude? Do they have the same species present (the ones you're studying and all others)? Etc.

Again, this will come up a lot in the future, so you should consider it all around. The reviewers try to determine if you're doing a piece of your advisor's project, or if you're really an independent student who came up with their own project and direction. It's good if the letters address this specifically as well.

BE SURE TO CITE MAJOR RELEVANT PAPERS. To save space, you can cite them using superscripted numbers and list the papers separately. If you fail to cite a major paper in your area, it makes you look bad. Keep in mind that you should also be reading and citing papers that study similar topics but in different species groups. For example, if you want to examine the effects of different parts of a calling song in sparrows, you really should cite the seminal work by Mike Ryan on that subject in frogs.

Make sure to talk about the content of the letters with your advisor and second recommender. Here are the relevant parts:

Again, these are in order of importance. Many recommenders limit their letters to the third part, and that greatly hurts the application. Discuss your project extensively with your letter-writers, and ask them to specifically discuss it in their letters.

You might be wondering- what DO they like? Here are some that might be favored.

Alright, that's it. You're on your own. Go out and write that application, and read the final checklist below before you click the "Send" button. Remember, you can only get 2 Sigma Xi grants in your career (and only while you're a student), and you MUST turn in a report one year after the first grant to be eligible for a second.

Online form for National Sigma Xi grants-in-aid of research.

Back to Noor lab homepage.