ArticleEcology and evolution2025
Proposal Writing Training and Idea Development for Early-Career Researchers Based on Constructive Alignment, Co-Creation and Active Learning Strategies.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In today's research landscape, which is ever more dependent on external funding, early career researchers (ECRs) urgently need competence in idea development and proposal writing. However, generalized lectures provided by many higher education and research institutions lack practical elements such as hands-on skill training and support measures to coach the ECRs through the process of developing their own proposal. This limited support often leads to proposals of low quality, low success rates, and low motivation to engage further in proposal writing. To move away from this "learning-by-failure," we developed a novel concept for training in proposal writing, constructively aligning learning outcomes with students' needs, co-creating course content with teachers and students, and using active learning strategies. The main novelty of this concept lies in students iteratively and interactively developing their own research ideas into project proposals while learning how to write proposals. Over the past 10 years, we have successfully run this concept as a 2-day workshop and as a 5-month class for ECRs in climate sciences. Most of the proposals developed during our courses were submitted, and the application success rate of 15%-30% is well above the average for the targeted funding schemes. Participants whose proposals were rejected nevertheless appreciate the high learning outcome and the peer support and are motivated to revise and re-submit their proposals. We see that increasing numbers of our ECRs are eager to develop and submit their own research ideas, which, considering the high success rates, brings both scientific and economic benefits to our institutions. We hope other research and higher education institutions will adopt our course concept, allowing more ECRs to benefit from co-created proposal writing training which directly aligns learning outcomes with students' immediate needs.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.