Rethinking grant writing: can we do better? Researchers weigh in

Across Sweden and around the world, researchers apply to many different funding calls each year, very often with the same project. Yet each funder has their own set of rules: different formats, different templates, different character limits, different online systems, and different interpretations of what a “strong” proposal looks like.

This results in hours—or sometimes even days or weeks—spent rewriting the same scientific idea into new shapes over and over again.

And yet, we still know very little about the true cost of this system: how much time is spent on reformatting grants, and how else could it be used? How many opportunities are lost because of such a system? What are the broader implications for research career advancement and equality? Several studies have investigated the costs associated with formatting scientific manuscripts, reporting an average loss of approximately 52 hours per researcher per year (1) and publication delays ranging from over two weeks to more than three months (2). However we have not found similar reports estimating the time costs of grant application formatting.

Therefore, we decided to find out. Our campaign to Harmonize Grant Application Formats began with a simple but crucial principle: to start by listening. Rather than assuming we knew all facets of the problem or the solutions, we spoke directly with researchers at different career stages, in different disciplines, across different countries, to learn from their lived experiences. We wondered, above all, whether one of the solutions for minimizing the costs associated with grant writing could be to reduce the differences in formatting, or to harmonize applications, across funders.

Over the span of a month, 25 self-selected researchers shared their experiences with us through a short multiple-choice survey (you can find it here, and if you’d like to participate the survey is still open!); we then followed up by interviewing almost half of them—those who were open to talking in depth about their experiences.

Although small, our cohort was balanced in gender and diverse in both career stage and country representation, which afforded us a good mix of perspectives. Even within this limited sample, we started to see some clear patterns emerging, hints of broader trends that we’ll continue exploring as the campaign grows. For now, we are more than happy to share with you below what we have learned so far!

In a nutshell, here’s what we found:

• Time sinks due to formatting differences are real, but uneven. Researchers spend meaningful hours adapting to different formats, and the burden perception varies mostly by career stage.

• Early-career researchers feel the strain most—lack of feedback and excessive workload are their main pain points. They apply to more calls, spend more time writing and reformatting, and are the ones most likely to work late into the night to keep up.

• Many researchers apply with similar projects across multiple calls. The real effort, though, lies not just in reformatting, but also in re-tuning the science itself to match each funder’s scope and expectations.

• Skipped opportunities happen, not always because of science, but also because of time and administrative complexity. This is something we can, and should, work together to improve in a harmonizing effort.

• What researchers ask for is not a single template for all, but clearer expectations, fewer administrative hurdles, and smarter early-selection steps.

• Constructive mood, not cynicism. Most researchers are pragmatic and solution-oriented: they showed up with ideas and created space for dialogue on how things could work better.

  
  

  

Let’s analyze our findings step by step. We’ll move from the people behind the data, to the impact on daily work, to practical ways forward.

So sit steady, and join us on the journey through researchers’ experiences! :-)

Listening first: what we asked researchers

Before discussing solutions, we wanted to truly understand the experience of those who live through the process every year.

We asked about the practical realities of applying for funding: how many proposals researchers prepare, how much time they spend, how often they apply to different funders with the same project, and what kinds of funders they approach. We explored the impact of formatting differences, from the hours spent adapting to different templates to the calls skipped entirely because of workload or complexity.

We also looked beyond effort and time. We wanted to know how these fragmented systems affect research quality, creativity, and motivation. Do funders recognize this burden? What would researchers change if they could redesign the process?

The result is a collection of perspectives, full of insight into what harmonization could mean in practice.

Tailoring applications: necessary but demanding

Researchers across a wide range of experience levels reported that applying for funding is a major part of their job. Most submit between three and ten proposals per year. At the same time, skipped calls are common—often one to five each year—typically because deadlines arrive too fast or preliminary data is not mature enough. Rather than risking a weak submission, researchers decide not to submit at all.

Researchers frequently apply with the same project to multiple funders, usually one to five times, which is exactly where hours spent on tailoring and reformatting accumulate. 96% of respondents described tailoring their proposal to different funders as moderately difficult to difficult, and the remaining 4% found it very difficult. To handle that extra work, many use AI tools to help with language and scope adjustments, a sign that digital assistance is already stepping in where clarity is missing.

When asked to describe the differences in formatting most frequently encountered across funders, most researchers focused on aspects related to the scope and impact of the call—elements that are inherently difficult to harmonize. However, many also noted variations in proposal length, space allocated for preliminary data, and other structural or administrative requirements, such as describing the project’s feasibility and available facilities for performing the research. Adjusting proposals to accommodate these differences, they emphasized, can require a significant amount of additional time and effort.

Several also pointed out that the challenge goes beyond formatting itself. Each funder provides its own set of rules and documentation, which applicants must carefully review before applying. While essential, this step adds yet another layer to the administrative workload and when the documentation is extensive it can become one of the most time-consuming parts of the entire process.

Formatting poses a significant burden, but not everyone wants it gone!

Preparing a full proposal generally takes 25 to 100 hours, although this can vary depending on the size of the grant. This estimate is slightly lower than, but overall broadly consistent with, the time requirement reported in two other studies (3,4). A smaller portion of that time, most often around 5 to 10 hours per proposal, goes into reformatting. Still, that portion can be the most disruptive, because it pulls focus away from scientific tasks. Many researchers, especially early in their careers, also report working beyond their normal hours to finish applications, contributing to stress and exhaustion.

When researchers talked about the impact of inconsistent formats, they described a loss that goes beyond time. Repeatedly reshaping the same project for different funders can lead to exhaustion, delays, and, in some cases, to simply skipping calls altogether. Early-career researchers, in particular, pointed out how these inefficiencies can slow down career progression and limit access to opportunities. Recent conversations in the field have highlighted that researchers who secure more grants early in their careers are significantly more likely to obtain additional funding later on—a phenomenon known as the Matthew effect, which is well documented across countries and funding systems (5). From this perspective, even a single missed grant opportunity early in one’s career, perhaps because the process felt too burdensome, can have lasting repercussions for future funding success.

We touched upon this topic with one of our interviewees, Dr. Laura Marimon Giovannetti, senior researcher at RISE, Sweden, who emphasized the importance of addressing this issue to ensure that early-career researchers have fair opportunities as they progress in their careers. One possible way to do this, she suggested, would be to make more grants available that are dedicated to researchers in intermediate stages from 7-15 years after their PhD.

Yet—unexpectedly—we also found that there’s some good in the lack of harmonization. Several researchers shared that being forced to go through their proposal again and again actually helped them improve it. Each new version pushed them to look more critically at their work, to refine arguments, fix weak spots, and strengthen the logic. Beyond catching typos, they found themselves rethinking the science itself. In a way, practice makes perfect—and what better way to practice than having to revisit your ideas?

When thinking about harmonization from this perspective, then, it becomes clear that the picture is more nuanced than expected: “Harmonizing can ease up the researchers burden, but over-harmonizing might interfere with our skills of developing great ideas, leading to intellectual stagnation” says Assistant Professor Mohammad Morsy at Karolinska Institutet, one of the researchers we interviewed.

As with everything that matters: it is all about finding the right balance.

Where researchers stand shapes what they see

Of course, not every researcher experiences this process in the same way. The same application form can be experienced differently depending on where they stand.

The country they work in, for example, seems to shape how all of this feels—from smooth and transparent to overly complicated. At this stage, our cohort is still relatively small, with researchers representing just three countries, yet even within this limited sample, we already began to notice patterns suggesting that national context does play a role in shaping perception. In our follow up interviews, researchers based in Sweden often described the process of writing and reformatting as demanding but rather straightforward—something they could navigate with the right preparation, although still hugely time-consuming. Others based in different countries than Sweden, however, painted a picture of heavy bureaucracy, confusing online portals, and formats that felt unnecessarily fragmented. This echoes wider cross-country research showing that administrative workload and stress perception vary depending on national and institutional culture (6). When discussing harmonization, we therefore need to consider that culture may play a role in shaping researchers’ experiences and needs.

Yet, national context is only part of the story. Perspectives also shift within countries, and one of the clearest patterns to emerge from our conversations is that the career stage deeply shapes how researchers experience the grant application process. A Postdoctoral researcher and a Senior Professor may face the same forms and deadlines, but they experience them in different ways.

Early-career scientists often see the system as confusing and fragmented. Much of their time goes not only into proposal writing, but also into producing the very data that supports their applications. This doubles their workload, since they carry both the scientific production and the administrative preparation. Senior researchers, on the other hand, tend to speak with a calm pragmatism. For them, writing grants, while still demanding, is also part of the scientific process itself: a space to think through their ideas, sharpen research questions, and plan collaborations. The pressure is still there, but it feels more integrated into the rhythm of academic life.

Between these two perspectives lies a shared recognition: the system could work better. Both agree that the current system’s fragmentation wastes time and energy that could be better spent on science; they crave clearer structures, more detailed templates, and real feedback, while still valuing flexibility and room for creativity.

The researchers’ perspective toward a common way forward: balancing frustration with pragmatism

Despite different backgrounds, contexts, and pressures, the tone of our conversations was overwhelmingly positive. Researchers care deeply about improving how science is supported. Or, as Dr. James Jenkins, a Postdoctoral Researcher at Karolinska Institutet, said: “There isn’t one single solution—but we can make progress together.”

Across our conversations, researchers never spoke in extremes. Rather, most described a pragmatic acceptance instead of simple resignation: while grant writing is demanding, it is also part of being a scientist. The real challenge lies not in the effort itself, but in how fragmented systems multiply that effort unnecessarily. Improvement is clearly possible and the ways forward, though diverse, are all potentially functional.

"Even if grant writing is laborious, it’s worth it. The more effort you put into writing well, the more you build your independence as a researcher.” said Associate Professor Francesca Nazio at University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy.

Interestingly, more than half of our respondents believe that funders are not fully aware of how much time and energy is consumed by formatting differences. Many highlighted that the silence after submission can feel demoralizing—especially for researchers in early career stages, where each rejection can feed uncertainty and self-doubt.

“It’s important to feel your work is seen—especially early in your career, when insecurities can easily walk in.” said Dr. Morsy.

.

Without feedback, rejection becomes a closed door and a missed learning opportunity.

“Getting feedback would help researchers find the right tone for their application,” said Dr. Tímea Szekerczés, a postdoctoral researcher at Karolinska Institutet, “and would also show appreciation for our work, time, and energy.”

Despite frustrations, the attitude toward funders remains remarkably constructive. Over 80% of the researchers we surveyed believe that greater alignment between funders would be beneficial—if done thoughtfully. The goal is not to erase the call’s identity, but to reduce unnecessary complexity in the system. This could be done in different ways, and researchers suggested practical improvements: clearer instructions for each section, simpler online systems, shared upload portals for standard documents, letters of intent to filter proposals at early stages, and at least basic feedback on decisions.

To harmonize or not to harmonize: is that the right question?

Is harmonization always the right goal, or could diversity in formats also carry benefits we haven’t yet fully recognized?

Our findings suggest that harmonization is not a simple yes or no question. On one hand, the current fragmentation in the system clearly creates unnecessary burden—especially for early-career researchers, who sacrifice evenings and weekends just to keep up. On the other hand, the process of adapting proposals does sometimes sharpen ideas, and the diversity of formats reflects meaningful differences in how funders evaluate science.

So should we harmonize?

Not blindly—but intelligently.

Among the researchers we spoke to, a few voices offered gentle caution. One of them, Dr. Szekerczés, captured it beautifully. While she recognizes the time lost in reformatting, she hesitates to fully embrace harmonization. As she put it, “Researchers aren’t factories of ideas—and our applications shouldn’t be either.” Her fear is that excessive uniformity could strip proposals of their personality and enthusiasm, the human spark that often makes great science stand out.

In her view, if harmonization does happen, it should focus only on the essentials, a clear statement of significance and a transparent budget for feasibility, leaving room for researchers to express their ideas in their own voice.

What seems most important is not making everything identical, but removing the obstacles that don't add value. Researchers are not asking for shortcuts, but for a system that respects their time, supports their growth, and gives them the information they need to improve.

This is why listening to researchers is only the first step towards a better grant writing experience. To find real, practical solutions, the voices of funders must be part of the conversation too. We have already begun this dialogue, and one funder who joined us early in this project described the challenges they face behind the scenes. Designing a grant call structure that different stakeholders can agree on is complex, time-consuming, and often a compromise between many different opinions. But their message to us was surprisingly aligned with researchers’ needs:

“We want to help researchers—and keeping it simple is the best way to do that.” says Dr. Joakim Amorim, Research Programme Manager with 15+ years of experience at the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF).

This shows that we are not on opposite sides of the problem. Researchers and funders share the same goal: a process that serves good science.

Our campaign continues. We will keep expanding the conversation, keep gathering perspectives, and keep looking for the balance between flexibility and fairness and between diversity and simplicity. The question is no longer whether we should improve the system, but how we can do it together.

As one of our interviewees, Dr. Giovannetti, put it:

“It’s important to talk about it—recognizing that there’s a structural problem is already the first step toward finding shared solutions.”

This spirit captures the heart of our campaign. Acknowledging the problem is progress in itself. From there, the way forward becomes something we can build together. ✨

References

1. LeBlanc, A. G., Barnes, J. D., Saunders, T. J., Tremblay, M. S. & Chaput, J.-P. Scientific sinkhole: The pernicious price of formatting. PLOS ONE 14, e0223116 (2019).

2. Jiang, Y. et al. The high resource impact of reformatting requirements for scientific papers. PLOS ONE 14, e0223976 (2019).

3. Herbert, D. L., Barnett, A. G., Clarke, P. & Graves, N. On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open 3, e002800 (2013).

4. Dresler, M. et al. Effective or predatory funding? Evaluating the hidden costs of grant applications. Immunol. Cell Biol. 101, 104–111 (2023).

5. Beres, G. Largest study of its kind shows that the ‘Matthew effect’ in science funding holds true. Research on Research https://researchonresearch.org/largest-study-of-its-kind-shows-that-the-matthew-effect-in-science-funding-holds-true/ (2025).

6. Tiggelaar, M., Groeneveld, S. & George, B. Coping with administrative tasks: A cross-country analysis from a street-level perspective. Public Adm. Rev. 84, 1134–1147 (2024).

Author

Francesca Gatto is a PhD candidate in immuno-oncology at Karolinska Institutet and an intern in Communication and Outreach at AdvanSci. Driven by a passion for meaningful dialogue between science and society, she works to make research engaging, accessible, and inclusive. For this study, she designed and administered the survey and conducted in-depth interviews with researchers.

Editor

Jane Fisher, PhD, is a co-founder of AdvanSci Research Solutions. She is passionate about practical solutions that enhance human health and improve the quality of biomedical research.