I have just crafted my reply to referees’ comments on a recent grant application to Wellcome. One referee was supportive but the other was highly negative but he/she is wrong! How do I get my message across to the funding panel? Well of course yopu muster logic and cite supporting literature. However, that opening sentence is critical. I have used “Unfortunately this referee has not read our proposal carefully and is not aware of recent developments in…” followed by “The referee is under the misapprehension that…”. The plus side is that the BBSRC has just funded me to use the technique I am hawking to Wellcome on another problem so I can also use that to support my assertions that the referee is talking garbage.

Refereeing grant applications is very different from refereeing papers in that the effects of rejection are much greater. If a paper is rejected, it can be recycled after modification and the only real effect is to delay publication (if it has any merit) and to puncture egos. Grant applications are another matter. The support of post-doctoral workers and their salaries is important. Research groups require some continuity to ensure a core of expertise is retained. It is my experience that referees (in the UK) tend to be more critical when it comes to refereeing grant applications than papers. They also tend to be more negative. This may reflect a greater concern for the allocation of charitable/tax payers funds. Or, more cynically, it may indicate a desire to keep funds in the bank until they themselves intend to apply.