Straight Up blog

Solution-first narratives: storytelling in research grant proposals

megan.morse@straight-up.com.au (Straight Up) — Mon, 18 May 2026 03:58:01 GMT

“Tell a story.” It’s advice many researchers hear when preparing ARC, NHMRC, or AEA proposals—but it’s rarely clear what that means.

The most effective way to apply storytelling in grants is through a solution-first narrative. Instead of burying your project in background detail, lead with the solution:

Solution – what your project will deliver.
Challenge – the problem it addresses.
Method – how you’ll achieve it.

This approach reflects how funders and reviewers actually read proposals. With dozens of applications to assess under strict timelines, reviewers need to see value upfront. By placing the solution first, you show impact immediately, then explain the context and pathway.

1. Lead with the solution

ARC reviewers typically spend less than 15 minutes on a first read of a Discovery Project. If your project’s outcome isn’t clear in the opening section, it risks being skimmed or misunderstood.

Example – Renewable Materials:

Solution-first: “This project will deliver a national database of renewable materials, giving Australian manufacturers the tools to meet net zero targets and strengthen sovereign capability.”
Traditional: “There is a gap in renewable material research, which this project will address by developing a national database…”

In the first example, the outcome and national benefit are clear immediately. The second delays the “so what,” forcing reviewers to work harder.

2. Then set up the challenge

Once reviewers know what you’re delivering, you can frame why it’s needed. This adds urgency and strengthens alignment with funder priorities.

Example – Health Equity:
“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to face a life expectancy gap of around 8 years. This project provides culturally safe, community-led solutions that directly address this disparity.”

Here, the challenge is clear, measurable, and connected to a nationally recognised priority—giving weight to the solution already introduced.

3. Explain your method as the “plot”

The method shows reviewers your plan is credible. Think of it as the sequence of events that leads to the resolution of the challenge.

Use stepwise signposting:

“First, we will co-design workshops with partners…”
“Next, we will pilot the intervention in three rural communities…”
“Finally, we will scale the model nationally with partner investment.”

Example – Industry Collaboration:
In 2024, Linkage proposals that demonstrated co-designed methods with multiple partners scored significantly higher than those where partners were clearly added late. Reviewers noted that early partner involvement strengthened feasibility and translation.

4. Why solution-first works

Reviewer-friendly: Reviewers get the “headline result” immediately. This mirrors how they process proposals under time pressure.
Aligned with funders: ARC, NHMRC, and AEA consistently emphasise impact, ROI, and national benefit in guidelines. A solution-first approach speaks directly to those criteria.
Evidence-backed: Research into grant peer review (University of Melbourne, 2022) found that clarity of proposed outcomes was one of the top predictors of scoring—often outweighing technical detail.
Memorable: Reviewers are more likely to recall proposals that open with a strong solution tied to national goals.

Storytelling in grants isn’t about embellishment—it’s about structure. By putting the solution first, then showing the challenge and method, you keep reviewers focused on the value your project delivers for Australia.

Ready to strengthen your proposal’s story? Book a discovery call with Straight Up—we help researchers turn strong science into competitive, fundable narratives.

From idea to industry: building partnerships that funders trust

megan.morse@straight-up.com.au (Straight Up) — Mon, 18 May 2026 03:54:08 GMT

Strong partnerships are the backbone of competitive funding. Whether it’s ARC Linkage or CRC-P, reviewers reward collaborations that look authentic, balanced, and ready to deliver.

Yet too many proposals treat partnerships as paperwork. Here’s how to build relationships that funders trust—and why it matters more than ever.

1. Start collaboration early

ARC Linkage guidelines require partner engagement from project conception, not post-draft. Late invitations signal tokenism.

Fact: CRC-P Round 15 data (DISR 2024) showed that projects developed collaboratively from concept stage had a 19% higher success rate than those where partners were added during the application phase.

💡 Tip: Hold an early “co-design” meeting. Agree on the shared problem, desired outcomes, and contributions before writing begins.

2. Balance the partnership

Reviewers look for clear roles and equitable contributions. Over-reliance on one partner—especially the academic—can flag delivery risk.

Include:

Financial or in-kind co-funding from multiple partners.
Defined responsibilities in management plans.
Evidence of mutual benefit (not just support letters).

3. Communicate regularly and transparently

Partnerships break down in silence. Funders prefer teams with governance structures that enable ongoing dialogue—steering committees, milestones, reporting cycles.

Example: The CRC for Future Fuels requires quarterly partner reviews to maintain alignment; similar practices strengthen any consortium.

4. Demonstrate trust and track record

Funders invest in relationships as much as ideas. If partners have collaborated before, highlight outcomes—joint publications, pilot results, or previous grant success.

If it’s a new collaboration, demonstrate due diligence: MOUs, capability assessments, or joint IP frameworks.

5. Tie partnerships to national goals

The why behind collaboration matters. Link the partnership’s collective capability to outcomes for Australia—sustainability, regional growth, or sovereign manufacturing.

Example:

“This partnership between university researchers and a regional hydrogen producer strengthens Australia’s clean-energy supply chain and creates skilled local jobs.”

Partnerships aren’t just a requirement—they’re a review criterion. Genuine collaboration signals capacity, credibility, and confidence.

Straight Up helps research and industry partners build relationships that reviewers trust—from concept workshops to submission. Book a discovery call to start your next collaboration strong.

5 secrets from grant review panels: what reviewers really notice

megan.morse@straight-up.com.au (Straight Up) — Mon, 18 May 2026 03:52:36 GMT

Ever wondered what happens after you hit “submit”? Behind closed doors, panels of reviewers assess your proposal—and their perspectives often determine success or failure. While every scheme has different scoring rubrics, reviewers across ARC, NHMRC, and AEA consistently highlight similar themes.

Here are 5 insider “secrets” from review panels that can help you strengthen your next application.

1. Clarity trumps complexity

Reviewers often assess dozens of applications in tight timeframes. If your proposal is dense or jargon-heavy, it’s far more likely to be skimmed. Clear writing consistently scores higher, even for complex projects.

💡 Fact: In ARC Discovery rounds, reviewers typically spend under 15 minutes on a first read. If they don’t grasp your project quickly, it slips down the rankings.

2. Impact is as important as science

Strong science is essential, but reviewers want to know: why does this matter for Australia?

ARC: contribution to national capability.
NHMRC: improved health outcomes.
AEA: pathways to translation and industry impact.

📌 Frame your outcomes in terms of measurable benefits, not just academic novelty.

3. ROI is always in mind

Panels are conscious that grants represent public investment. They ask: does this deliver value for money?

Proposals that clearly articulate return on investment (ROI)—whether in cost savings, jobs, exports, or system efficiencies—are seen as lower risk and higher value.

4. Partnerships strengthen credibility

Reviewers look for signs that your project has external buy-in. Partner letters of support, co-funding, or demonstrated end-user engagement show your proposal isn’t operating in isolation.

💡 Fact: In 2024, CRC-P proposals with multiple industry partners had significantly higher success rates than those with a single collaborator.

5. Presentation signals professionalism

Well-structured, error-free proposals send an unspoken signal: this team is organised and capable. Sloppy formatting or inconsistencies create doubt, even if the science is solid.

Tip: Have a colleague review formatting, references, and structure. Reviewers notice.

Grant review panels don’t just score science—they assess clarity, impact, ROI, partnerships, and professionalism. Understanding these five “secrets” can give your proposal the edge.

Straight Up has reviewed hundreds of applications—we know what panels notice. Book a discovery call to get your proposal panel-ready.

The power of impact statements: how to prove your research matters

megan.morse@straight-up.com.au (Straight Up) — Mon, 18 May 2026 03:51:11 GMT

Every funding body—from ARC to NHMRC—wants more than good science. They want impact. Yet the “Impact Statement” remains one of the most misunderstood sections in a proposal.

Strong impact statements don’t just describe what might happen if the research succeeds—they prove that change is likely, measurable, and aligned with national priorities.

Here’s how to write one that reviewers remember.

1. Show clear alignment with funder priorities

ARC and NHMRC guidelines both frame impact as the “benefit to Australia beyond academic outputs.” (ARC Assessor Handbook 2024).

Connect your research directly to government strategies—Future Made in Australia, National Health Priorities, Net Zero 2050, or Closing the Gap.

💡 Example:

“This project contributes to sovereign capability by establishing domestic manufacturing pathways for rare-earth magnets, reducing reliance on imports and strengthening national supply chains.”

2. Define who benefits—and how

Generic claims like “benefits the community” don’t cut it. Reviewers want specificity: who gains, how soon, and by what mechanism.

Economic impact: cost savings, productivity gains, jobs created.
Social impact: improved health, equity, or quality of life.
Environmental impact: reduced emissions, circular-economy outcomes.

Fact: NHMRC peer-review summaries (2023) show that proposals with quantified beneficiary outcomes scored up to 0.4 points higher on average for “Significance and Innovation.”

3. Prove feasibility of translation

An impact statement is only credible if the pathway feels achievable.
Outline the steps between discovery and adoption—partners, pilots, trials, or policy interfaces.

Example:

“Working with South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, the intervention will be trialled across three regional hospitals before national rollout.”

This shows a realistic mechanism for translation, not wishful thinking.

4. Measure what matters

Impact isn’t about listing KPIs—it’s about choosing meaningful indicators.

Impact Type	Possible Metric	Source
Health	Reduction in readmissions (%)	NHMRC Impact Framework 2023
Industry	Increase in domestic production value ($)	DISR Manufacturing Stats 2024
Environment	Tonnes CO₂-e saved annually	Clean Energy Regulator 2024

5. Close with the “so what”

End with a single, strong statement linking back to Australia’s goals:

“This research will enhance national resilience by providing evidence-based solutions to future energy security challenges.”

Impact statements aren’t an afterthought—they’re the heart of a proposal’s value story. When done well, they answer the reviewer’s ultimate question: Why should this be funded now, by us, for Australia?

Need help translating outcomes into impact? Talk to Straight Up —we help researchers frame value, alignment, and feasibility so reviewers can see your project’s real-world potential.

The grant writer’s toolkit: essentials every research team needs

megan.morse@straight-up.com.au (Straight Up) — Mon, 18 May 2026 03:48:07 GMT

Every research team has that moment — the funding round opens, the deadline feels impossibly close, and someone says, “We’ll just pull it together.”

But successful proposals aren’t just written — they’re built. Behind every winning grant is a toolkit of habits, templates, and communication skills that turn brilliant research into a clear, fundable story.

Here’s what separates prepared teams from the ones still wrestling with Track Changes the night before submission.

1. A shared understanding of the story

The strongest proposals start with everyone on the same page — literally.
Teams that spend time early clarifying why the project matters, who benefits, and what success looks like move faster later on.

💡 Tip: Before drafting, try a one-page “Project Storyboard.” Capture the big picture — problem, solution, impact, partners, outcomes — and circulate it early. This becomes the spine of your entire proposal.

2. A plain-English communicator

Every team needs someone who can translate complexity into clarity. Whether it’s the CI, the comms lead, or an external grant writer, this person turns data and theory into a narrative reviewers can actually follow.

IARC and NHMRC reviewers frequently cite clarity of writing as one of the main factors influencing their scoring — on par with innovation and feasibility.

Reality check: Reviewers can’t champion what they don’t understand.

3. Evidence at your fingertips

Strong proposals don’t just sound good — they prove it.
Have pilot data, case studies, and partner letters ready early. Reviewers want to see feasibility, not promises.

Fact: Across competitive grants, proposals that include validated pilot results or pre-existing partnerships are rated as more likely to succeed, regardless of field.

📎 Keep an internal folder of “evidence assets” — impact statements, outcomes from previous grants, testimonials, and metrics — so you’re never scrambling to find proof.

4. Real partnerships, not paper ones

Reviewers know the difference between genuine collaboration and token inclusion. Projects that bring partners into the design phase — instead of adding them right before submission — demonstrate credibility and capacity to deliver.

Strong partnerships also unlock co-funding, infrastructure, and networks that strengthen your case for impact.

5. The courage to edit

Every strong proposal has been rewritten — many times.
Editing isn’t about perfectionism; it’s about precision. The best teams invite internal reviewers, fresh eyes, and even non-experts to test readability before hitting submit.

💡 Quick exercise: Ask a colleague from another field to read your summary. If they can clearly explain what your project does and why it matters, you’re ready to go.

The best toolkit isn’t a checklist — it’s a mindset. Successful research teams treat grant writing as an extension of their research culture: collaborative, evidence-driven, and open to feedback.

Because at the end of the day, every winning proposal tells the same story — we were prepared, aligned, and clear on our purpose from the start.

Need help turning your next proposal into a fundable story? Talk to Straight Up — we help research teams build structure, clarity, and strategy before the rush begins.

Avoiding common grant review pitfalls: mistakes you can fix before submitting

megan.morse@straight-up.com.au (Straight Up) — Mon, 18 May 2026 03:46:38 GMT

Every research team has that one application they thought would fly — only to get the dreaded feedback: “Strong science, but lacked clarity and impact.”

It’s a familiar story across ARC, NHMRC, and AEA rounds. The proposal’s research was excellent, but small missteps — often outside the technical content — cost valuable points.

After reviewing and editing hundreds of applications, the Straight Up team has seen the same issues appear time and again. The good news? They’re all fixable.

Here are the most common pitfalls — and how to avoid them before reviewers even pick up their pens.

1. Starting with the problem, not the solution

Reviewers want to understand what your project will achieve — not just what’s broken. Yet many proposals begin with pages of context before revealing the solution.

💡 Fix it: Lead with your project’s outcome in the opening paragraph. Once reviewers can see where you’re headed, they’ll stay engaged through the detail.

2. Jargon overload

It’s easy to forget that reviewers are often generalists, not specialists. Highly technical language makes it harder for them to assess value or relevance.

Fact: In ARC peer reviews, “clarity of communication” is consistently among the top three scoring criteria — and one of the most common reasons for “not recommended” comments.

💡 Fix it: Keep the science rigorous, but explain it as if you’re talking to an intelligent colleague outside your field.

3. Partnerships on paper only

Reviewers can spot the difference between genuine collaboration and token inclusion. Partner letters that look templated or vague raise red flags.

💡 Fix it: Involve partners early and make their roles concrete. Co-authored sections or specific partner contributions in the methods show authenticity. Make sure to include them throughout the proposal.

4. Weak link between goals and methods

One of the easiest ways to lose marks is to describe excellent methods that don’t clearly connect back to the stated objectives.

Example: A project claims to deliver a national database but describes a workflow focused solely on algorithm development. The disconnect leaves reviewers uncertain about deliverables.

💡 Fix it: Revisit your aims and ensure every method contributes directly to them. Clarity here builds reviewer confidence that your team can deliver what you promise.

5. No clear ROI or impact statement

Whether it’s health, environment, or industry, funders increasingly assess return on investment — economic, social, or environmental. Yet many proposals stop short of quantifying impact.

Fact: In NHMRC Investigator Grants, reviewers now explicitly score “value for money” under the impact criterion.

💡 Fix it: Include even simple metrics — cost savings, potential uptake, or beneficiaries reached — to make your impact tangible.

Most proposal weaknesses aren’t about the science — they’re about communication. Reviewers want to fund ideas that are clear, credible, and confidently delivered.

Before you submit, ask yourself:
✅ Is the solution clear upfront?
✅ Does every section connect back to my aims?
✅ Would a reviewer outside my field understand the impact?

Sometimes small tweaks make the biggest difference.

Want a second set of expert eyes on your proposal before you hit submit? Talk to Straight Up — we help teams spot weak points early and turn strong ideas into fundable, polished applications.

What government funders are looking for in 2025: Key shifts in ARC, NHMRC, and AEA Priorities

megan.morse@straight-up.com.au (Straight Up) — Mon, 18 May 2026 03:44:58 GMT

Grant success isn’t just about strong research design—it’s about alignment. Australia’s major funding bodies regularly refine their priorities to reflect national needs, government policy, and global challenges.

In 2025, researchers and innovators face a funding landscape shaped by the Future Made in Australia agenda, sustainability, health equity, and increasing expectations around collaboration. Here are the top 5 shifts you need to know before drafting your next application.

1. National priorities are front and centre

Future Made in Australia: Expect stronger weighting for projects that boost sovereign capability, critical minerals, and advanced manufacturing.
Health equity: NHMRC is prioritising rural, Indigenous, and community-led health outcomes.
Sustainability: ARC and AEA are rewarding projects that show measurable environmental benefit and support net zero transitions.

Takeaway: Show explicitly how your project contributes to these national goals.

2. Collaboration isn’t optional anymore

For schemes like ARC Linkage, at least one industry or end-user partner is required. But in 2024, proposals that included multiple, well-integrated partners (across industry, government, and community) were more competitive.

Reviewers valued applications that demonstrated depth and breadth of collaboration, with clear roles, contributions, and pathways to impact.

Tip: Don’t stop at the minimum—genuine multi-partner collaboration is a clear strength. Bring partners into discussions early, ideally during idea development and grant-writing workshops. This ensures their priorities are genuinely embedded, not bolted on at the end.

👉 Straight Up specialises in partner engagement—if you need support coordinating collaborations or running co-design workshops, reach out.

3. Impact and track record are under scrutiny

Funders are increasingly risk-averse. They want confidence that your team can deliver—and that the investment will generate strong returns for Australia.

That means demonstrating:

ROI (Return on Investment): Show how every dollar leads to measurable outcomes—economic growth, health improvements, sustainability gains, or policy impact.
Pilot data or feasibility studies that reduce uncertainty.
A strong track record of publications, patents, or partnerships.
Clear dissemination and translation strategies, backed by credible stakeholders.

Takeaway: Position your proposal as not just viable, but a high-value investment in Australia’s future.

4. Responsible and ethical research

In 2025, expect closer scrutiny of:

Research integrity: transparency, governance, and open data practices.
Indigenous engagement: ensuring benefit-sharing and genuine collaboration.
Sustainability: minimising environmental impacts of research activities.

5. Efficiency and value for money

With budgets tightening, funders are rewarding proposals that demonstrate realistic budgets, scalable outcomes, and efficient use of funds.

Example: Rather than a broad $1m request for “equipment,” specify “$250k for spectroscopy equipment, reducing reliance on overseas facilities and strengthening sovereign capability.”

The message from government funders in 2025 is clear: align with national goals, collaborate widely, show evidence of impact, and demonstrate responsibility. Proposals that hit these notes will stand out.

Straight Up helps researchers translate complex ideas into proposals aligned with national priorities. Talk to us before the next deadlines and make sure your project is positioned for success.

Lessons from 3 successful grant applications: what worked and why

megan.morse@straight-up.com.au (Straight Up) — Mon, 18 May 2026 03:42:47 GMT

Every grant application is different, but successful proposals share common traits. By analysing real-world examples (anonymised, of course), we can learn what worked—and why.

Here are three lessons from applications that secured funding through ARC, NHMRC, and CRC-P schemes.

Lesson 1: Clear solution upfront (ARC Linkage win)

An ARC Linkage proposal led with its solution: “This project will create a renewable materials database to help manufacturers meet net zero targets.”

Instead of opening with technical background, it showcased value upfront. Reviewers praised its clarity and immediate alignment with national priorities.

Lesson 2: Strong ROI case (NHMRC success)

An NHMRC project demonstrated that implementing its intervention could save the healthcare system $45M annually by reducing hospital admissions.

The proposal combined strong pilot data with cost-effectiveness modelling, making ROI explicit. Reviewers noted that the economic case strengthened confidence in the project’s impact.

Lesson 3: Depth of collaboration (CRC-P awardee)

A CRC-P project engaged five partners across industry, academia, and government from the idea development stage—not as late add-ons.

This depth of collaboration created credibility, reduced duplication, and showed strong pathways to translation. Reviewers rated “capacity to deliver” as a standout strength.

What these lessons show

Put the solution first, then the challenge and method.
Quantify ROI wherever possible.
Build partnerships early and genuinely.

These aren’t just tips—they’re patterns reviewers consistently reward.

By learning from successful applications, you can apply the same principles to your own proposals. Clarity, ROI, and collaboration are not “optional extras”—they’re decisive factors in winning funding.

Need help applying these lessons to your proposal? Talk to Straight Up before your next submission.

2025 grant lessons — what we learned and what matters for 2026

megan.morse@straight-up.com.au (Straight Up) — Mon, 18 May 2026 01:15:54 GMT

As 2025 draws to a close, several clear patterns have emerged across Australia’s major funding schemes — ARC, NHMRC, CRC-P and AEA.
This year revealed what reviewers consistently reward, what they disregard, and what researchers must prioritise heading into 2026.

Below is a synthesis of the strongest lessons from 2025, along with strategic guidance for teams preparing for the year ahead.

1. Early preparation predicted success every time

Across schemes, the most competitive proposals came from teams that began preparations months before the deadline. Early starters had:

stronger and more genuine partnerships
well-tested impact narratives
pilot data already validated
clearer alignment with guidelines and national priorities

By contrast, late-start projects showed:

rushed narratives
weaker justification of need and feasibility
superficial partnerships
higher-stress workflows and quality trade-offs

In 2025, early scoping wasn’t a “nice to have” — it was a clear differentiator.

2. National priorities shaped the winners — and will intensify in 2026

The strongest projects aligned tightly with Australia’s strategic priorities.
Themes that dominated 2025 and will only strengthen in 2026 include:

sovereign manufacturing capability
defence and national security innovation
clean energy, hydrogen and decarbonisation
critical technologies and digital capability
regional partnerships and industry-led collaboration

Projects that could clearly articulate how they advanced these priorities consistently outperformed those that could not.

3. Reviewer expectations for clarity increased noticeably

Panels repeatedly prioritised proposals that were:

purposeful
coherent
easy to follow
aligned with national benefit
structured with clear impact pathways

Reviewers reported that clarity, not complexity, was the primary differentiator.

The proposals that scored highly were those that:

opened with the solution
presented a clear logic chain
explained significance without jargon
demonstrated impact in measurable terms

Even highly technical research succeeded when its narrative was accessible.

4. Partnership quality mattered more than partnership quantity

Across ARC Linkage, CRC-P, and industry-linked programs, funders rewarded projects that went beyond token involvement.

Successful partnerships demonstrated:

co-design from the idea stage
balanced contributions and co-funding
mutual benefit for all parties
evidence of long-term collaboration
credible translation pathways

Superficial, last-minute or poorly defined partnerships were consistently downgraded.

In 2025, partnership depth became just as important as scientific merit.

The Strategic Imperative for 2026

2026 will be a challenging year:

ARC Linkage will run only ONE assessment round
competition will be sharper
funders will heighten scrutiny of national impact and translation
partnership quality will matter more than ever
clarity and alignment will determine competitiveness

Teams that begin preparations now — especially narrative framing, impact case-building and partner engagement — will enter 2026 with a meaningful advantage.

The strongest performers next year will be the ones who act early, learn from the patterns of 2025, and shape their proposals with intention, clarity and collaboration.

👉 If you want to get ahead of the 2026 rounds, Straight Up can help you start now.

Science communication trends for 2025: what researchers need to know

megan.morse@straight-up.com.au (Straight Up) — Mon, 18 May 2026 01:15:20 GMT

Science communication is changing rapidly. As researchers compete for grants, jobs, and impact, understanding the latest trends in how science is shared and assessed is crucial. In 2025, three shifts stand out: digital-first engagement, culturally responsive communication, and transparent, open practices.

Here’s what researchers need to know.

1. Digital-first communication

Reviewers and stakeholders increasingly expect research to be communicated clearly in digital formats. From video explainers to interactive graphics, digital-first strategies are becoming standard.

💡 Example: Universities using short-form videos alongside grant submissions for internal approvals have reported better comprehension among multi-disciplinary reviewers.

2. Culturally responsive communication

In Australia, Indigenous engagement is now a key expectation in many grants (ARC, NHMRC). This extends beyond consultation to co-designed communication strategies that respect cultural knowledge and context.

Fact: In 2024, ARC guidelines explicitly required applicants to outline how Indigenous perspectives are considered and communicated.

3. Transparency and open science

Funders are emphasising open access, reproducibility, and data transparency. Proposals that articulate how data and outcomes will be shared (while respecting IP and privacy) score higher on responsibility and integrity.

📌 NHMRC’s 2025 update requires applicants to outline data sharing and open science commitments.

4. Audience-first writing

Whether it’s a grant panel, a government department, or the general public, the trend is to tailor communication to the audience. This means reducing jargon, highlighting benefits, and showing relevance.

Example: Compare:

Jargon-heavy: “This project utilises quantum photonics to interrogate complex material structures.”
Audience-first: “This project uses quantum light to identify materials faster, reducing costs for Australian manufacturers.”

5. Storytelling with impact

Narrative remains powerful—but the emphasis is on impact. Reviewers want stories that link research outcomes to national benefit, community relevance, or global competitiveness.

Science communication in 2025 is about clarity, accessibility, and responsibility. Researchers who adapt to these trends will not only improve their grant success but also strengthen their impact beyond academia.

At Straight Up, we help researchers align with evolving communication trends and funding priorities. Talk to us before your next submission.