Strong science is essential, but in the world of competitive grants, strong communication can be just as important. A well-designed project can fall flat if reviewers struggle to understand its purpose, significance, or impact. The majority of researchers in Australia receive little to no formal training in communication, yet ARC, NHMRC, and AEA reviewers consistently emphasise the importance of clarity.

The good news? You don’t need to be a trained science communicator to write well. By applying a few evidence-based techniques, you can dramatically increase the accessibility and persuasiveness of your proposal. See our top 5 here:

1. Reviewers don’t have time (or patience) for jargon

ARC Discovery applications often exceed 100 pages when attachments are included. Reviewers may only have a few hours to read, score, and write feedback. If your proposal is hard to follow, it risks being skimmed or misunderstood.

Example:

• Jargon: “The project will deploy a novel methodological paradigm to interrogate complex system interactions.”

• Clear: “This project will use a new method to analyse how different systems interact, giving clearer insights into real-world outcomes.”

2. Why clarity increases success rates

Research from the University of Melbourne has shown that grant proposals written with a strong narrative thread are more likely to be scored favourably, even when technical merit is similar. Reviewers consistently rate clarity and “readability” as key factors in decision-making.

Clarity doesn’t mean “dumbing down.” It means removing barriers so reviewers can quickly grasp what makes your project significant.

3. Use structure to guide the story

Funders like ARC and NHMRC provide strict word limits. Make those words work harder by:

• Using clear subheadings (e.g., Objectives, Methods, Impact).

• Writing short paragraphs with one key idea each.

• Using signposting phrases like “This project addresses three key challenges…”

4. Translate outcomes into impact

Remember: funders want to know what difference your research will make. Instead of saying “This research investigates X”, try “This research will provide Y, which will benefit Z group in Australia.”

Tip: Always connect back to funder priorities. For example, NHMRC wants health outcomes; ARC prioritises national benefit; AEA focuses on translation and industry collaboration.

5. Tools that help

• Grammarly (for clarity and conciseness).

• Hemingway Editor (for readability).

• Peer review by someone outside your field—if they can’t understand it, a reviewer won’t either.

Science communication in grants isn’t about oversimplifying your work. It’s about respecting your audience, making your ideas accessible, and giving reviewers confidence in your ability to deliver. Clear writing turns good science into a fundable proposal.

If you’d like tailored feedback before the next ARC or NHMRC deadlines, book a discovery call with us —clear communication is one of the fastest ways to strengthen your application.