Overly technical language (usually by scientists or engineers) that was difficult or even indecipherable for non-specialists in the field. This includes both jargon and extremely dense prose. Some disciplines are by nature more obscure and technical than others, and applicants in these disciplines must make an extra effort to communicate to a diverse audience. A clear explanation of how the proposed project and the applicant's past research fit into the landscape of the discipline is usually quite helpful. Consider including a glossary of technical terms. Proposals were generally not successful if they were a 'retooled' version of a federal proposal (e.g. NIH) that had not been translated into non-technical language for a non-specialist panel.
Weak record of accomplishments (for applicants two or more years beyond the Ph.D.). No evidence that prior support from the Research Council led to scholarly activity. An applicant in a relatively well-funded discipline, who has been unable to obtain external funding over a several-year period (or who has made no efforts at obtaining such funding), will lose points on "track record" as well as "quality of expected outcomes".
Inadequate budget explanation. Lack of specificity within the proposed budget about precisely what all the funds would be used for. If partial funding is expected from other sources, be sure to specify which items are proposed for Research Council Support. Also, projects were less successful when the narrative argued that financial support was needed for certain expenses (equipment, graduate assistants, etc) and the project budget used the funds for other expenses. Finally, projects were less successful if the expenses requested in the budget seemed relatively unimportant to the project. Fully justify all proposed expenses.
Lack of clear outcomes. Projects were rated less favorably if the narrative did not clearly specify what the result of the project would be (e.g., papers, presentations, grants) or if the outcomes seemed inadequately ambitious. Also, projects were less successful if the same author had received prior Research Council support to produce the same product, and still had not completed it.
