Vincent Pagès (Team leader, CNRS, Marseille, France)

‘I learned to make it easy for reviewers to give me a good score’

What I enjoyed most is that the book describes a whole philosophy of writing, which makes it easy for reviewers to give you a good score – you almost end up writing the reviewers' report for them! Writing in an ‘Assert and Justify’ manner rather than the typical academic ‘Argue and Conclude’ was an eureka moment for me. We're not used to writing like that, but it makes a big difference.

I also enjoyed the humorous tone. And that it doesn't have to be read linearly. And that it's easy to go back to specific chapters of interest. Though I had already followed a course with David, I greatly benefited from the book.

I will recommend it to researchers and postdocs in my team, but also to my students to give them good writing habits right away!

Caroline Medioni (Research fellow, CNRS, Nice, France)

‘The book will change how I prepare a grant application – I'll start by finding the reviewer form’

I got what I expected from the book: concrete advice with clear examples to improve my grant writing and achieve a more direct style. So that my reviewer isn’t bored after 5 minutes reading my proposal.

But the biggest take for me (and the biggest shock) was the section about knowing the exact key terms that are scored by evaluators, and including them in the headings of my application.

Until now, when writing a grant, I had never thought of looking for the reviewer evaluation form to find out which terms are scored by reviewers. This will definitely change my preparation when I write a grant!

Élise Huchard (Team leader, Montpellier, France)

‘I read it in two 1-hour sittings (plus 20 mins waiting for my kids in my car)’

I have attended a course with David, and my subsequent proposal benefited a lot from it – it got funded. But going back to this proposal after reading the book, I can see that there is still some room for improvement.

The book distils clear tips to draft an ‘easy-to-read’ proposal from the conception to the finish line. I now pay way more attention to my headings and arborescent structure. I also found the tips about speed-scorable applications precious.

I liked the concrete examples given throughout. And the fact that the structure of the book follows and illustrates the advice given inside. It’s speed-readable!

Plus, having reviewed many proposals, I felt grateful for this advice that makes reviewers’ life easier :-)

Léa Le Poder (R&D head, Bamboo for Life, France)

‘I didn't think I could enyoy a book about grant writing’

Please, keep the balance between rigorous methods, funny anecdotes and entertaining examples. It made me less reluctant to read methodology books. In fact, it felt more like being in a course.

I caught myself laughing in the second part of the book. I was waiting for the examples. I didn’t think I could enjoy reading a book about writing a grant that ... 'wouldn't cause reviewers to lose the will to live’.

I liked very much the tree for visualizing the logic of the writing. It completely departs from the approach we are used to. Once I was convinced of the efficiency of this logic, I was easily able to implement the new points of the book.

I would already like to read the next book to enjoy the examples and the punchlines.

Emilia Kerr (Early-stage researcher, Aix-Marseille University, France)

‘Useful at all career stages – both for hard sciences & humanities’

I expected practical advice in an easy-to-grasp style. I found precisely what I was looking for!

The book is to the point, very concise and understandable. I enjoyed that potential objections and misconceptions about writing are argued against. 

I think it’ll be useful to researchers at all career stages, even those who haven’t started writing a proposal yet.

Most of the content can be transferred to other types of writing (papers, dissertations, etc.). Moreover, it applies both to hard sciences and to humanities.

Thomas Chalk (Research fellow, CNRS, Aix, France)

‘I realized my writing was too technical ’

I read the book in a few days, largely on my bus commute. I liked that you can pick it up and put it down easily. I read it on kindle, which nicely hyperlinks passages together. I enjoyed that the book lives by its own rules, this is a nice touch and adds confidence in the system.

I realized my writing was too technical. I have always considered myself a decent communicator, but I probably use too much ‘floral’ rather than ‘arborescent’ language, as I would often search for synonyms to achieve what I considered elegance.

I also liked the power of repetition, the value of white space, and jargon elimination. I already looked at my officemates proposal and saw some very glaring jargon!

Pr Robert Belshaw (American University in Iraq, Baghdad)

‘The book applies what it teaches: writing something that can be read and understood quickly’

I routinely speed-read to get a sense of what is being discussed and then move on. But I have not had any formal training in designing a ‘speed-readable’ layout, so I liked the procedure to design one. 

I also particularly enjoyed reading about the need to always lead with the main point or question (i.e. to be explaining an important point rather than building up to it, as in the traditional academic style).

I would recommend the book to anyone needing to write funding applications. Grant-writing is hard, and having a well-written and concise book is very useful.