More Details

Table of Contents:

• Machine generated contents note: ch. 1 Scientific research: The fountain of progress
• 1.1. brief history and origins of scientific exploration
• 1.2. What is scientific research?
• 1.3. What makes a research activity more significant than others?
• 1.4. scientific integrity and intellectual merit of a research activity
• 1.5. scientific method: Common denominator of all scientific research
• 1.5.1. Observation and experimentation phase
• 1.5.2. Modeling phase
• 1.5.3. Prediction phase
• 1.5.4. Verification phase
• 1.6. Empirical, experimental, and theoretical research
• 1.7. Interplay between basic and applied research
• 1.8. Role of technology in scientific research
• 1.9. Summary
• 1.10. Bibliographical notes
• 1.11. Questions
• ch. 2 Factors impacting outcomes of proposals
• 2.1. Intellectual merit: An essential ingredient for all research proposals
• 2.1.1. U.S. National Science Foundation's intellectual merit criteria
• 2.1.2. European Research Council's proposal evaluation criteria

• 2.2. What is the broader impact and why is it important?
• 2.3. Should every proposal have a "real-world application?"
• 2.4. When should a research proposal be submitted?
• 2.5. Calibration of preliminary research ideas
• 2.6. Is every investigator equally qualified to win funding?
• 2.7. Using online bibliometric tools for self-assessment of research qualifications
• 2.8. Collaborating with other researchers
• 2.9. Summary
• 2.10. Bibliographical notes
• 2.11. Questions
• ch. 3 Building blocks of a winning proposal
• 3.1. How should a research proposal be organized?
• 3.2. Proposal summary templates and samples
• 3.2.1. Example: Bottom-up summary style
• 3.2.2. Example: Middle-first-top-last summary style
• 3.2.3. Example: Top-down summary style
• 3.3. Commonly used verbs in proposal stimmaries
• 3.4. How to organize and prose an effective introduction
• 3.5. Research problems and proposed work
• 3.6. Approach and preliminary results
• 3.7. Plan of proposed work
• 3.8. Expected contributions and broader impact
• 3.9. Qualifications of researchers
• 3.10. Ten most common mistakes that make proposals fail
• 3.10.1. Mistake 1: Submitting a poorly composed proposal summary
• 3.10.2. Mistake 2: Avoiding preliminary results
• 3.10.3. Mistake 3: Omitting a work plan
• 3.10.4. Mistake 4: Submitting an inappropriate budget
• 3.10.5. Mistake 5: Submitting a poorly written proposal
• 3.10.6. Mistake 6: Marginalizing or downplaying someone's work
• 3.10.7. Mistake 7: Not acknowledging related work or plagiarizing it
• 3.10.8. Mistake 8: Citing dated references
• 3.10.9. Mistake 9: Downplaying the impact of investigators' credentials
• 3.10.10. Mistake 10: Submitting a work plan with infeasible resources
• 3.11. What to do if your proposal is declined
• 3.12. Summary
• 3.13. Bibliographical notes
• 3.14. Questions
• ch. 4 Getting on with conducting a funded research project
• 4.1. Assembling a research team
• 4.1.1. Graduate students
• 4.1.2. Undergraduate students
• 4.1.3. Postdoctoral researchers and research scientists
• 4.2. Carrying out the proposed work
• 4.2.1. Developing a work plan
• 4.2.2. Using resources effectively
• 4.2.3. Example
• 4.2.4. Optimal work flow schedules using two researchers
• 4.2.5. Example
• 4.2.6. Optimal work flow schedules for task flow trees
• 4.2.7. Work plan heuristics
• 4.2.8. Logging and tracking ideas
• 4.3. Reaching research milestones and publicizing results
• 4.4. Reporting functions
• 4.5. Working on several research projects at once
• 4.6. Getting ready for next research proposal
• 4.7. Summary
• 4.8. Bibliographic notes
• 4.9. Questions
• ch. 5 Promoting research in universities
• 5.1. Synergy between education and research
• 5.2. Graduate study and research programs
• 5.3. Measuring faculty contributions and performance
• 5.3.1. raw performance metrics model
• 5.3.2. Example
• 5.3.3. Computing merit raises
• 5.3.4. Measuring effectiveness of faculty in conducting research
• 5.3.5. Using citation indices to measure research impact
• 5.3.6. Using online bibliometric tools
• 5.4. Top five mistakes universities should avoid not to stifle research
• 5.4.1. Mistake 1: Viewing research as an ordinary budget item
• 5.4.2. Mistake 2: Failing to grasp the needs of a research university
• 5.4.3. Mistake 3: Inadequate clerical support for processing proposals
• 5.4.4. Mistake 4: Missing the cue on how to reward research
• 5.4.5. Mistake 5: Favoritism for research resources
• 5.5. Summary
• 5.6. Bibliographic notes
• 5.7. Questions
• ch. 6 Scientific research: A funding agency perspective
• 6.1. funding agency model for scientific research
• 6.2. Proposal solicitation and submission process
• 6.3. Classification of proposals
• 6.3.1. Proposal clustering
• 6.4. Reviewer selection and panel assignment process
• 6.4.1. Panel assignments with capacity and specialty constraints
• 6.4.2. Panel assignments without specialty constraints
• 6.5. Proposal review and evaluation process
• 6.6. Ranking proposals
• 6.7. Grant management and measuring effectiveness of funding
• 6.8. Role of program directors in proposal evaluation and funding decisions
• 6.9. Five mistakes funding agencies should avoid to improve their impact
• 6.9.1. Mistake 1: Failing to predict when to start and stop funding a field of research
• 6.9.2. Mistake 2: Issues with peer review
• 6.9.3. Mistake 3: Lack of calibration in funding levels
• 6.9.4. Mistake 4: Excessive project reporting requirements
• 6.9.5. Mistake 5: Transparency and accountability issues
• 6.10. Summary
• 6.11. Bibliographical notes
• 6.12. Questions.

View 99 more lines View less

Author/Creator:

Oruc, A. Yavuz

Languages:

English

Language Notes:

Item content: English

Main Work:

Handbook of scientific proposal writing [by Oruc, A.Y.]

Subjects:

Proposal writing in research — Handbooks, manuals, etc.

Proposal writing in research

Genres:

Handbooks and manuals

General Notes:

"A Chapman & Hall book"--T.p.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Electronic reproduction. Palo Alto, Calif. Available via World Wide Web.

Physical Description:

1 online resource.

Digital Characteristics:

text file

Call Numbers:

Q180.55.P7 O78 2012eb

ISBNs:

1439869200 (electronic bk.)
9781439869208 (electronic bk.)
9781439869185 (hardcover, alk. paper) [Invalid]
1439869189 (hardcover, alk. paper) [Invalid]

OCLC Numbers:

769190231

Other Control Numbers:

EBC1633308 (source: MiAaPQ)