This document provides guidance on writing a rebuttal letter for a grant proposal that was not initially funded. It recommends contacting the program officer by phone to discuss reviewer feedback. Key points to address in the rebuttal letter are common fixable problems identified in the reviews such as poor writing or insufficient experimental details. Unfixable issues to acknowledge respectfully include philosophical disagreements. The rebuttal should be one page, summarize major criticisms positively, and explain how suggested changes will be addressed or why an unreasonable change cannot be made. The tone should remain polite and convey commitment to strengthening the proposal.

1. The Rebuttal Letter

2. The Grief Cycle
Do NOT write
rebuttal letter
Write rebuttal
letter

3. The Process
• Contact program officer
o Telephone better than email
o Do not shoot the messenger
• Read summary statement closely
o Especially the Resume and Summary of
Discussion
• Look for common themes

4. Common Fixable Problems
• Poor writing
• Insufficient information, experimental
details, or preliminary data
• Significance not convincingly stated
• Approach not shown to be feasible,
but applicant can demonstrate
feasibility
• Insufficient discussion of potential
problems and alternatives approaches

5. Not Fixable or More
Difficult Problems
• Philosophical issues (reviewers believe
work is not significant)
• Hypothesis not sound or not
supported by data presented
• Work has already been done
• Proposed methods not suitable for
testing the hypothesis
• Poor investigator or environment
score

6. The Rebuttal Section
• Length: 1 page
• Briefly summarize major criticisms
• Frame criticisms in a positive light
The reviewers felt that we were unqualified to do the
proposed work.
vs.
The reviewers felt that additional expertise in statistical
analysis would strengthen the project.

7. The Rebuttal Section
• Some of the same reviewers will likely read
the revised version
• Reviewers will comment on responsiveness
to previous critiques
• Make suggested changes, if reasonable
• If suggested change is unreasonable,
respectfully state why

8. The Rebuttal Section
• Be polite!
“The reviewer is just plain wrong.”
“We respectfully disagree.”
• Remember the viewpoint of the
reviewer
Grant not funded
Grant may be
funded

9. The Rebuttal Section
• Keep tone positive
• Try to convey commitment
and excitement
oAdditional data
oNew publications
• Have someone else read it

10. Final Thoughts
• Make sure it is the best possible
o Maximize prelim data/publications
o Have others read it
• Only one resubmission allowed of
current grant
• After 2nd rejection, can resubmit grant
as a new proposal (no rebuttal
section)
• Consider submitting one Aim as an R21