Grant Writing Best Practices: Is a Peer Review Really Necessary?

The process of preparing a grant for submission demands hours of dedicated work. After investing considerable time and effort into crafting the narrative, collaborating with the team and program staff, finalizing the budget, constructing a Logic Model, wrangling partners, and ensuring all necessary attachments are prepared for upload, it can seem like conducting a peer review is an unnecessary burden that demands too much time. While software is indeed a valuable tool for identifying and correcting spelling and grammatical errors, it cannot replace the unique contribution of another human being to the writing process.

Seasoned grant writers know that planning for a peer review is essential. The impact of a review on the success of the grant proposal cannot be overstated. Ideally, someone who has not written any of the grant’s components should review the full narrative prior to submission because a review should not just check for grammatical errors but also ensure that the narrative is clear to an unfamiliar reader (the person evaluating your application for funding), compelling, and aligned with the objectives of the funding organization. Understanding why this step is so impactful and what the peer reviewer should check for is crucial for a successful peer review.

When considering the role of the peer reviewer, it is important to remember that the grant evaluator, who will be assessing your submission, will be reading numerous grant proposals within a short timeframe. They will typically score your grant based on a rubric which often includes how you describe your project, your objectives, how you plan to fulfill the grant requirements, and how your project aligns with the priorities of the funding organization.

A few questions the peer review should aim to answer include:

1. Did the Writer Fully Answer Each Question?

The purpose of peer review is not only to check for spelling and grammar errors but also to ensure that the proposal effectively and clearly addresses each of the funders’ questions. Sometimes, a writer may digress or stray off-topic unknowingly, resulting in an answer that does not fully satisfy the question. Sometimes, what appears to be a clear answer to the writer, who is at this point very familiar with the project, may not be clear to another reader. No matter how many times the writer reviews the draft, they might overlook missing information or the fact that the question was not fully answered.

Often, applications include questions within the question that must be addressed. A reviewer’s job is to ensure that each part has been answered.

2. Are the Answers Clear?

When we are deeply immersed in our organization’s work each day, it is essential to remember that what may be obvious to us is not necessarily common knowledge to others. Meaning that the writer might have assumed certain aspects of the project were understood and failed to explain key details accurately in the proposal. Or the writer may have used “alphabet soup” or acronyms that we understand, but a reader from a different state, organization, or field may not. Peer review helps ensure that the proposal is understandable and clear to readers without background knowledge of the organization or the project. All acronyms must be defined, and all words and phrases should be spelled out entirely within the proposal to avoid confusion. The best way to define an acronym is to spell it out the first time and add the acronym, for example, The Grant Plant (TGP).

3. Can the Reader Quickly Identify the W’s (who, what, when, where, why, & how)

The peer review should ensure the reader can quickly and easily identify who, what, when, where, and why. Of course, HOW will be important as well.

Who is the target population for funding? Who will we serve? Make sure to clearly describe the target population and use statistics if you have them.

What will happen as a result of the funding? Make sure the project is comprehensively described, and there is a clear understanding of what will be done because of funding. Is this a project serving a specific population or a construction project that will benefit a specific group?

Where will the project take place? It is important that the reader fully understands the location of the project, and the location must fit within the funder’s priority areas. This could be a specific region, state, county, or city. The review should also make sure it is clear where clients will be served—in their homes or another location. Or if the grant is for construction or renovation, what is the address, and what information is available about the location?

When will the project begin and end? Is there a timeline with key dates and milestones? It is important to be specific, and this is often a required question in an application. The reviewer should also ensure that the project dates align with the funding dates and the funder’s expectations of when the project should start and end.

Why is this project necessary? This is often expressed in a need statement required as part of an application. If the application does not require a need statement, it is important to explain why the funder should care about and invest in your project. Research is crucial here. Does the writer provide statistics to demonstrate the need? What would be the consequences if the project does not proceed? What changes will occur as a result of the project and its funding?

How will your project be carried out? Of course, the overall grant proposal will describe this in greater detail, but the reader should be able to identify this quickly. The first few paragraphs of the narrative should provide a brief overview of the entire project, clearly identifying the target population and the intended impact.

4. Does the Proposal have a Consistent Flow and Readability?

The peer review is often the first time the entire proposal is read in its entirety and assessed for completeness.  This is especially important when different people from an organization or agency collaborate to write separate portions of the proposal, partners contribute to different aspects of a proposal, or the lead writer writes sections of the application out of order and then merges them for the final review. Once everything has been compiled, the peer review will help ensure that all aspects of the application are cohesive, nothing has been left out, and nothing has been repeated. The peer review should ensure that the proposal flows nicely from one section to the next and does not leave the reader with more questions than answers.

Readability encompasses multiple factors affecting the reader’s understanding of the text. Grammarly’s definition of “readability” is, “Readability determines how easy or difficult it is to understand a piece of text.” Remember —a grant evaluator may read multiple proposals in one day (as many as 10-20). Experience and feedback from grant evaluators remind us that they fully appreciate a proposal that is simple, thorough, organized, and easy to read. Readability includes everything from font size and margins to word choice, sentence length, and organization.

Readability Tips:

1. Choose an easy-to-read font. Use at least a 12-point font, such as Times New Roman or Calibri. The peer review should also ensure that the font and margins are consistent throughout the document.
2. Choose simple vocabulary. If you are unsure of an easier-to-understand word alternative, check for synonyms and see if you can find something that will be clear to your audience. Add a definition if technical jargon or unfamiliar text is necessary. The peer reviewer can assist in finding an alternative word or phrase if needed.
3. Shorter sentences are key. One of the most common mistakes grant writers make is writing sentences that are too long. Short, concise sentences are easier for the reader to follow. The peer reviewer should look for ways to shorten and split long sentences into two or more sentences. Use fewer words when possible.
4. Organize the narrative. Narratives need to be easy to follow, with content listed in a logical order. Use subheadings and bullets to break up text. Readers prefer white space as opposed to a large chunk of solid text. When appropriate, use diagrams and charts to organize your thoughts. A peer review can suggest to the lead writer how the document could be better organized for easy reading.

Readability scales are available online, and Microsoft Word includes a Readability Scale in Editor (more information can be found here). These tools will help you measure the length of words, the length of sentences, and the number of sentences in each paragraph. Additionally, the scale will provide you with a reading grade level. In Word, this is listed as Flesch Kincaid Grade Level. The lower the number, the easier it is to read. Depending on the grant, a good rule of thumb is to shoot for a number between 6 and 9.[1][2] While these tools aid in understanding your proposal readability, the best readability assessment will come from the peer reviewer. Another human who understands the proposal’s audience and purpose will be a better judge of readability than any online tool.

An Unhelpful Review

A peer review can seem daunting to grant writers and may leave them feeling uneasy and unsure of the actual value of a peer review. However, as discussed above, a good peer review will ensure that the finished product is not just good but also competitive, clearly defines the project, thoroughly answers each question, and describes the relevant work of the requesting organization. A peer reviewer should avoid the following:

1. Providing unhelpful or harsh feedback — The peer review should not be overly negative or full of criticism without offering constructive solutions. The reviewer and writer should be considered a team and work together to improve the document. Always be kind and offer detailed explanations for needed changes and look for alternative solutions.
2. Making changes without an explanation—The peer reviewer should make changes in edit mode so that nothing is deleted or changed without the author seeing and approving it. In some cases, it is helpful for the reviewer to add a comment explaining the need for edits.
3. Not adhering to internal deadlines— Edits and updates may require additional time, and the reviewer should consider the approaching grant deadline and ensure that the writer has sufficient time to make necessary updates. When considering your internal deadlines, plan to get the draft to the peer reviewer at least a full week before you plan to submit it. This will give the reviewer enough time to provide a detailed, thoughtful review while giving the writer plenty of time for updates and final edits.

Who Should Provide a Peer Review?

The Peer Reviewer may be a colleague (from your organization or another organization), project manager, communications officer, or program staff member. Identify the reviewer early in the overall process so that the reviewer can schedule time to review the narrative and block the time out on their calendar.

When undertaking a grant writing project, it is essential to prioritize peer review as a critical component. Peer review should not be treated as an afterthought or something that can be done if there is enough time. Instead, it should be integrated into the proposal timeline from the start, as it plays a crucial role in the grant writing process.

[1] How readable is your grant proposal? (2011, July 27). Meredith Hilt’s Blog. https://mhilt.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/how-readable-is-your-grant-proposal/

[2] Jacobs, J. (2023, November 10). Understanding Grade Levels and Readability Scores. ReadabilityFormulas.com. https://readabilityformulas.com/understanding-grade-levels-and-readability-scores/

Contact: Tricia Willard, Resource Development Officer, [email protected]

This post was filed under: Grant Writing, Inside TGP