EditverseMedical research grant proposals written to the funder's form and the reviewer's score sheet
Specific aims pages, full research proposals, resubmissions and fellowship applications for clinical and biomedical research. Each section is drafted to the funder's current structure and page limits, then checked line by line against the criteria reviewers score.
Three ways to start, by how much of the application exists
If you have an idea and preliminary data, start with the aims page. If you have a draft, start with a criteria audit. If you have a summary statement, start with the resubmission tier.
Specific aims and concept note
A one-page NIH Specific Aims page or a funder concept note. Scored review of your draft, a drafted page from your idea and data, or the page plus a budget justification narrative.
from $375 3 to 5 business days, 1 revision roundResearch grant proposal
Agency-criteria audit of an existing draft, a resubmission with a one-page introduction and targeted rewrites, or a complete proposal with aims, research strategy, analysis plan with power calculation, human-subjects sections and budget justification.
from $1,190 Audit in 7 to 10 business daysFellowship and foundation grants
Fellowship and career development applications (F30, K-series, clinician-scientist schemes) and private-foundation proposals: research plan, training plan or foundation narrative, candidate statements and a compliance check.
from $1,250 2 to 3 weeks, 2 revision rounds
The structures we write to, with the version in force
A proposal is assessed inside a form. The table lists the formats we work in most often and the rule set each draft is checked against. The funding call you send always overrides the general guide.
| Funder and scheme | Structure and limits | What reviewers assess |
|---|---|---|
| NIH research project grants (R01, R03, R21 and related) | SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, FORMS-I. Specific Aims: 1 page. Research Strategy (Significance, Innovation, Approach): 12 pages for R01, 6 pages for R03 and R21. Project Summary: 30 lines. Project Narrative: three sentences. Introduction to a resubmission: 1 page. | Simplified Peer Review Framework, for due dates on or after 25 January 2025. Factor 1, Importance of the Research, scored 1 to 9. Factor 2, Rigor and Feasibility, scored 1 to 9. Factor 3, Expertise and Resources, judged sufficient or having gaps and not scored. |
| NIH fellowship and career development (F and K) | F and K instruction sets of the same guide. Research training project strategy for fellowships: 6 pages. K applications: 12 pages combined with candidate information. Biographical sketch through SciENcv. | Candidate, training plan, mentors and research plan, as set out in the funding opportunity. |
| ERC Starting, Consolidator and Advanced Grants | From the 2026 Work Programme: Part I (the idea, state of knowledge, objectives and overall strategy), 5 pages. Part II (methodology, work plan, risks and mitigation), 7 pages, with budget justification outside the limit. | Step 1 assesses Part I with the CV and track record. Feasibility is assessed at Step 2. The older B1 and B2 layout no longer applies. |
| Horizon Europe RIA and IA | Standard application form, Part B version 5.1. Sections 1 Excellence, 2 Impact, 3 Quality and efficiency of the implementation. Sections 1 to 3 are limited to 40 pages, 45 for lump-sum topics. | The three section headings are the three award criteria. Pages over the limit are hidden from evaluators. |
| Wellcome Early-Career, Career Development and Discovery Awards | Scheme-specific form and word limits, taken from the scheme page and sample form at the time of writing. | Three areas: the research proposal, the applicant, and the research environment. |
| ICMR intermediate extramural grants, 2026 call | Online through ePMS. Part A without investigator identifiers: structured summary up to 500 words, background and rationale up to 1,000 words, up to four SMART objectives, methodology, milestone chart. Part B: preliminary work, team, institutional support, budget. | Marks in the 2026 call: rationale 20, health impact 20, novelty 15, methodology 30, implementation 15. |
| ANRF Advanced Research Grant | Two stages: a short pre-proposal, then a full proposal with online fields and a scientific document of up to 20 pages in 12-point type, excluding references. | As set out in the call for the stage you are entering. |
Other funders, including DBT, UKRI, NHMRC and private foundations, are written to the call document and form you send. We do not reuse a format from memory: the call text is read first and its limits are entered on the compliance sheet.
How a proposal is built
Call reading and compliance sheet
A medical writer reads the funding call and the application guide and lists every required section, page or word limit, font rule and attachment. You receive the sheet before drafting starts, so gaps in inputs are visible on day one.
Aims and argument outline
A subject-matter expert with a PhD or MD in your field tests the central hypothesis against your preliminary data and the recent literature, then agrees the aims and the order of the argument with you. Nothing is drafted in full until you approve the outline.
Section drafting
The writer drafts each section to its limit. For an NIH application this means Significance, Innovation and Approach, with rigor, expected outcomes, pitfalls and alternatives stated for each aim. You remain the applicant and the author of the science; we write from your data and decisions.
Statistics and feasibility
A statistician writes the analysis plan and the sample size justification, naming the effect size, its source, alpha, power and attrition allowance. Recruitment feasibility and the timeline are checked against the numbers you can document.
Criteria mapping and internal review
A second expert, who did not draft the text, reads the proposal as a reviewer and completes the criteria map described below. Weak or unsupported statements are returned to the writer with the criterion they fail.
Your review and revision rounds
You receive the draft with tracked changes and comments. Revision rounds are fixed by tier: one for an audit or aims page, two for resubmissions, complete proposals and fellowships. You submit through your institution's office.
What you provide
- Always
- Funder, scheme and call link or number. Your aims or current draft. Preliminary data, figures and key references.
- For full proposals
- Biosketch or CV for each key person, budget figures from your grants office, facilities and resources details, human-subjects or animal-use information.
- For resubmissions
- The summary statement or reviewer comments and the application as submitted.
- For fellowships
- Candidate CV, mentor details, draft training plan and the institutional commitment.
Reviewer-criteria mapping
Every proposal leaves with a map that shows where each scored criterion is answered. A reviewer who cannot find the answer in the expected place scores as if it were absent.
What you receive
- Proposal sections in the funder's layout, as editable files
- Compliance sheet with every limit and its measured value
- Criteria map, completed by the internal reviewer
- Analysis plan and sample size justification with inputs listed
- Reference list checked against PubMed or the original source
- For resubmissions: a point-by-point response table and the one-page introduction
| Review factor | Question the reviewer asks | Where it is answered | Internal check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factor 1: Importance of the Research | Does the work address a gap that matters, and is the idea new? | Aims page, paragraph 2. Significance, section A.1. Innovation, section B. | Gap stated with a dated citation |
| Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility | Will the design answer the question, and can it be completed? | Approach, C.2 to C.4. Sample size, C.5. Pitfalls and alternatives after each aim. | Power inputs traced to preliminary data |
| Factor 2: inclusion and timeline | Are participants and recruitment realistic? | Approach, C.6. Human-subjects section. Timeline figure. | Recruitment rate matches site records |
| Factor 3: Expertise and Resources | Does the team have what the aims require? | Biosketch personal statements. Facilities and resources. Letters of support. | Each aim has a named responsible role |
Format checks before delivery
Page count per section, font and margin rules, line count of the summary, citation style, figure legibility at the printed size, and agreement between the aims as written on the aims page, in the strategy and in the summary.
Grant documents handled
| Document | Typical inputs | What you receive |
|---|---|---|
| Specific Aims page | Research idea, preliminary data, funder call | One-page aims with hypothesis, aims, expected outcomes and impact statement |
| Concept note or letter of intent | Funder template, project outline, indicative budget | Note at the funder's length with objectives and approach |
| Research strategy or scientific case | Approved aims, data, methods detail, references | Full narrative to the page limit, with figures placed and legends written |
| Statistical analysis plan and sample size section | Design, primary outcome, pilot estimates or published effect sizes | Analysis plan per aim and a justified sample size with inputs listed |
| Human-subjects and inclusion sections | Protocol outline, population, risks, consent process | Sections drafted to the form's headings |
| Budget justification | Budget figures from your grants office, roles and effort | Narrative justification by cost category |
| Resubmission introduction and response | Summary statement, prior application | One-page introduction, response table, revised sections with changes marked |
| Fellowship training plan and statements | CV, mentor details, career goals | Training plan, candidate statements and research plan in the scheme's order |
| Foundation proposal | Foundation call, organisational details, project plan | Narrative and required attachments list |
A grant often starts from a trial protocol or ends in one. Protocol drafting sits under clinical study reports and protocols, and stand-alone power calculations under statistical interpretation.
Prices by service and tier
| Service | Basic | Advanced | Premium |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific aims and concept note | $375 Scored review with rewrite suggestions | $500 Drafted aims page or concept note | $800 Aims page and budget justification narrative |
| Research grant proposal | $1,190 Agency-criteria audit, strengthened narrative, compliance check. 1 revision round | $1,690 Resubmission: response strategy, introduction, targeted rewrites. 2 revision rounds | $3,500 Complete proposal for a single-site project. 2 to 4 weeks, 2 revision rounds |
| Fellowship and foundation grants | $1,250 Fellowship application | $2,000 Foundation grant application | By quote Multi-component applications |
By quote
Multi-site, programme and centre grants, consortium proposals and multi-component fellowships are quoted. The quote depends on:
- Funder and scheme, and the number of sections and attachments in the form
- Number of aims, work packages and partner sites
- How much text and preliminary data already exist
- Whether the statistics section needs new calculations
- Time to the deadline
Payment and invoicing
Two routes are open on every service. Pay now by invoice to confirm the order, or send the brief through the quote form and pay after the first draft is delivered, only if it meets expectations. Deliverables may be used once payment is made.
Editverse Medical issues an official invoice and receipt for institutional or grant reimbursement. Students and unfunded researchers can ask for a discount through the quote form; requests are decided case by case. All prices are listed on the pricing page.
Outside scope
- Submission through Grants.gov, the EU Funding and Tenders Portal, ePMS or any other portal: your institution submits
- Institutional sign-off, budget figures and cost rates: these come from your grants office
- Generating preliminary data or running the study
- Any statement about the likelihood of funding
- Research programme strategy and contract research: see research consulting
Work is aligned with COPE, ICMJE and GPP 2022, with institutional and country-specific ethics requirements followed. The applicant remains the author of the application and accountable for its content. See method and quality controls.
Questions applicants ask
How long before the deadline should I start?
For a complete proposal, six weeks or more before your institution's internal deadline: drafting takes 2 to 4 weeks and two revision rounds follow. An audit of an existing draft takes 7 to 10 business days and an aims page 3 to 5 business days. If the deadline is closer, say so in the quote form and we will state what can be finished in the time.
Who writes the proposal?
A medical writer drafts it, a subject-matter expert with a PhD or MD in the field of the application sets and checks the scientific argument, and a statistician writes the analysis plan and sample size section. A second expert reviews the draft against the funder's criteria before you see it.
Do you write for the NIH Simplified Peer Review Framework?
Yes. For due dates on or after 25 January 2025, most NIH research project grants are reviewed under three factors. The application sections did not change, so the work is in placing the evidence for each factor where a reviewer expects it. The criteria map above records this.
My application was not funded. What do you need for a resubmission?
The summary statement and the application as submitted. We group the critiques, agree with you which need new data, new text or a reasoned reply, draft the one-page introduction and rewrite the affected sections with changes marked.
Can you prepare the budget?
We write the budget justification narrative from figures your grants office supplies. Salary scales, indirect cost rates and institutional approvals stay with your institution.
Is my unpublished data kept confidential?
Yes. Files are used only for your project. The terms are set out on the confidentiality page.
Send the call and what you have so far
Attach the funding call, your aims or draft and the deadline. You receive a scope, a timeline and a price or quote by email from support@editverse.org.