Enhanced Narrative Review

Get expert guidance on crafting compelling, effective narratives to support your research.

There are no good writers, only good rewriters.

Developing a clear and compelling proposal narrative will increase your odds of securing funding for your project. ORED Research Development offers an array of enhanced review services to help grant seekers refine their narratives for greater clarity, alignment, and reader impact. When requested with sufficent lead time, these optional services complement the standard proposal development support provided for all proposals by ORED's pre-award research administrators.

To learn more about how an enhanced review could help you rewrite your best proposal, email resdev@olemiss.edu or contact Jason Hale (jghale@olemiss.edu, x3922).

Submit Enhanced Review Requests

Enhanced Review Options

Review Type: Non-technical
Feedback Type: Suggestions, margin notes, & tracked edits
Reviewed By: Vendor
Review Iterations: 1 to 3
Advanced Notice: 8 to 16 weeks before sponsor due date
Turnaround Time: 1, 2, or 4 weeks per iteration
Cost to PI/Unit: $3,000 per project

Review Type: Technical/Disciplinary/Scientific
Feedback Type: Summary suggestions, margin notes
Reviewed By: External SME contracted by Vendor
Review Iterations: 1
Advanced Notice: 4 weeks before sponsor due date
Turnaround Time: 1 to 2 weeks
Cost to PI/Unit: $500 per project

Review Type: Non-technical and technical
Feedback Type: Suggestions, margin notes, & tracked edits
Reviewed By: Vendor and SME contracted by Vendor
Review Iterations: up to 3 non-technical plus 1 technical
Advanced Notice: 8 to 12 weeks before sponsor due date
Turnaround Time: 1 week per iteration
Cost to PI/Unit: $3,500 per project

Review Type: Non-technical
Feedback Type: Suggestions, margin notes, & tracked edits
Reviewed By: ORED Research Development
Review Iterations: 1
Advanced Notice: 2 weeks
Turnaround Time: 2 weeks
Cost to PI/Unit: $0

Commonly Asked Questions

ORED RD has service agreements with one or more research development vendor firms to provide these reviews, with costs split between ORED RD and the proposing investigator/unit. For those with more modest needs and budgets, ORED RD can provide a more limited internal enhanced review free of charge.

Note that the listed cost to PI and/or Unit is at least 30% less that what the vendor charges UM for the service. ORED RD subsidizes these costs; the actual amount of the subsidy depends on the vendor and service chosen, and may be discounted even further for some programs through the use of ORED RD Vouchers.

Draft Narratives should consist of the main proposal narrative, and an optional summary or abstract. For example, for NSF proposals, the Project Description and the Project Summary would make up the Draft Narrative.

For NIH, the Research Plan and the Project Summary/Abstract would make up the Draft Narrative.

Ideally, these drafts will be in MS Word format, so that suggested edits can be made with change tracking. If an MS Word version is not available, PDF is acceptable.

This depends on the service requested, the time available, and the expressed needs of the requesting investigator.

Generally, grantsmanship reviews consist of bulleted suggestions, margin comments, or proposed edits (all of which you are free to accept or ignore) the reviewer thinks could help you rewrite your narrative to improve its non-technical aspects, potentially including:

Clarity, effect, and specificity
Readability and “skimability”
Effective use of graphics, pictures, and white space
Formatting for emphasis
Organization
Responsiveness to program guidelines and review criteria
Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
Broader societal impacts (for NSF)
Reference to UM resources and infrastructure (internal review only)

With a Subject Matter Expert (SME), our vendor identifies and contracts with a grant-experienced subject matter expert who is qualified to review the scientific or technical aspects of your proposal, identify potential weaknesses that might be identified in the peer review process, and suggest ways to shore up those weaknesses before submission. We (UM) do not know who the reviewer is.