The decline letter is short, and it stings. It says your application wasn't selected and, often, not much more. The temptation is to file it and move on, or to write back in frustration.
Both are understandable and both waste the most valuable thing a decline can give you: information about how the people who read your application saw it. This article covers how to ask for feedback, how to read scores and comments without taking them personally, what to say to a program officer and how to decide whether to resubmit.
Ask for the feedback first
Whether you get reviewer comments depends on the funder, so check what yours offers before you assume anything.
Some federal programs share them as a matter of course. NSF says a principal investigator whose proposal is declined receives an explanation of the reasons and copies of the reviews used in the decision, with reviewer-identifying information removed. NIH releases a score in eRA Commons and then posts a summary statement. NINDS says the score appears within three business days of the review meeting and the summary statement within 30 days.
Other funders, including many foundations, may offer a short call or a few lines of explanation, or nothing. If the letter doesn't mention feedback, ask. A request that works well is brief and specific:
Thank you for reviewing our application. We'd appreciate any reviewer comments or a short debrief that would help us strengthen a future application. We're happy to work around your schedule.
Send it to the contact named in the decline letter or the notice. Be gracious. The goal is information, not a second round of argument.
Read the scores before the comments
If you have scores, start with the structure, not the prose. Lay the criteria next to your points in a table. Here is a hypothetical example for a funder that scores out of 100:
| Criterion | Possible points | Your score |
|---|---|---|
| Statement of need | 25 | 20 |
| Program design | 30 | 15 |
| Organizational capacity | 20 | 18 |
| Budget | 15 | 8 |
| Evaluation | 10 | 7 |
| Total | 100 | 68 |
The total says you were behind. The table says why: program design and budget account for 22 of the 32 points lost. That's where to look first, and it's a much more useful starting point than "we lost."
Then read the comments one criterion at a time. For each, ask three questions:
- Is it a factual problem? Did the reviewer miss something that was on the page, or was the information really not there? "Not there" is on you.
- Is it a judgment call? Some comments reflect a reviewer's view of the field. You can respond to them, but you may not be able to change them.
- Does it repeat? One reviewer's comment is an opinion. The same point from several reviewers is a finding.
Look for patterns and conflicts
Read all the comments together and list the themes. A weak evaluation plan mentioned by three reviewers is a pattern. A single reviewer who loved your partnership while another doubted it is not.
Comments will sometimes contradict each other. One reviewer finds your plan too ambitious, another too modest. Don't try to satisfy both literally. Look for the underlying issue: perhaps the plan doesn't explain why the scope is right for your capacity and timeline, and a clearer explanation would answer both.
Keep these limits in mind:
- Written comments are a summary. They may not capture everything reviewers discussed.
- A misreading is still useful. If a reviewer missed something that was on the page, make that point easier to find next time. Writing for a tired reviewer covers how.
- A decline doesn't always mean a weak application. A funder can fund only some of the applications it receives. A score near the funding line is a different situation from a score far below it.
Talking to the program officer
A call or email can add what the comments leave out. Prepare for it:
- Wait for the written feedback if it's coming. NINDS, for example, advises waiting until you have the summary statement before contacting a program officer to discuss the outcome.
- Ask forward-looking questions. "What would make an application in this area more competitive?" "Is this still a priority for the next cycle?" "Does our project fit a different program better?"
- Don't argue the score. Disagreeing with a reviewer is unlikely to change a decision, and it uses the goodwill you'll need later. If you believe the process itself was flawed, ask about the funder's formal channels. NSF, for example, allows a PI to request reconsideration, with the procedure set out in its policy guide.
- Take notes and send a thank-you email summarizing what you learned. Talking to a program officer has more on this.
Decide whether to resubmit
Reapplying is a decision, not a reflex. Weigh it:
- Is the opportunity still open or recurring? Check whether the program will run again and whether the priorities have changed.
- Can you fix what was found? Some weaknesses are quick (clarity, missing data). Others need months of work, such as a partner or a pilot.
- Do you still have the capacity? A resubmission still costs a week of someone's time. Go or no-go applies the second time as well.
- Is this the right funder? Sometimes the reviewers' reaction says your project fits somewhere else.
Funder rules also matter. NIH accepts only one resubmission (A1) of an original application. It must be submitted within 37 months of the application it follows, and the applicant must have received the summary statement from the earlier review. NIH also requires an introduction, normally one page, that summarizes the substantial changes and responds to the summary statement's criticisms. Other funders have their own rules, so check the notice.
If you do resubmit, show you listened. Address each major comment, say what changed and where, and keep the tone calm. Don't rewrite what worked.
Your next step
Request feedback now on your most recent declined application. If the funder doesn't share reviewer comments, ask for a short call. When you have the feedback, make a table like the one above and list the three themes that appear most.
When you resubmit, SoliContraX can help you work from the notice again: update the concept to reflect what the reviewers said, then redraft from your own materials and check the result against what the funder asked for. You decide what changes. See how to get started.