how to write a research proposal in microbiology

• Writing & Research Conference
• UW Course Descriptions
• Support the Writing Program

University Writing Program

Columbian College of Arts & Sciences

• Conference Program Spring 2024
• News Archive
• Events Archive
• Funding Transparency & Restrictions
• WID Graduate Assistants and Peer Writing Preceptors
• WID Course Guidelines for Faculty
• WID Teaching Resources for Faculty
• WID GA Workshops & Practicum
• Writing Center
• UW 1020 Writing Template for Faculty
• Student Resources
• Julian Clement Chase Prizes
• Eckles Prize for Research Excellence
• WID Teaching Awards

A Guide to Writing Research Papers for Introductory Microbiology

A research paper is a report of original research and is, without doubt, one of the most important documents written by scientists. Research papers communicate important findings and ideas to other scientists, especially those working in the same or similar fields. In turn, they are given the opportunity to evaluate, revise and extend the research you have communicated. One of the important components of this course is to train you on how to conduct research and communicate your findings in the form of a professionally produced research paper. You will be carrying two research projects during the semester. One will involve the isolation and characterization of a particular microbe or microbes, the other focuses on various aspects of antibiotic drug resistance. The research papers you will be required to write follow a format common to most journals dedicated to the biological sciences. The format given below conforms to that stipulated by many biological journals. The format is broadly based upon that required for full research papers in  The Journal of Bacteriology , published by the American Society of Microbiology.

Manuscripts should be written in concise and grammatically correct American-English, and must be submitted according to the format specified below. The manuscript should be typed, the lines double-spaced, and one inch margins reserved on either side of the page. All titles should be bold and centered. Each section should begin on a new page. Typically, the paper will consist of seven sections: The  Title page : a descriptive title of the article, the name of the author, and her/his departmental and university affiliation, and e-mail address for correspondence. The  Abstract : a short narrative that summarizes the major accomplishments of the work being described . An   Introduction : a statement placing the work to follow in historical perspective and explaining its intent and significance.  Materials and Methods  that describes how the research was conducted so that it can be repeated by other investigators. The  Results  section describes and analyzes the experimental data. The  Discussion  explains the interpretation of the results and their significance.  References  documents all the sources consulted in carrying out the research and writing the paper, and  Figures and Tables  which illustrate the major data as photographs, graphs and tables.

Writing research papers is a very difficult enterprise, so do not expect to become an expert straight away. Familiarize yourself with the style of research papers by carefully studying published material: you will be given ample opportunity to do this during the course. You do not have to aspire to the professional level of these papers. However, you must pay careful attention to the content and style of the papers. Bear in mind that the papers you consult reflect many weeks, or months of intensive research, and your research projects will only last a few weeks. Therefore, the audience for your papers will be your peers and instructors. You will, in fact, be given the opportunity to review and evaluate papers submitted by your peers during the semester. The guide below is based upon these premises while at the same time reflecting the requirements for professional journals. Excerpts (edited for anonymity) included here are from previous student papers and sample papers prepared by students in previous years will be posted on Blackboard.  

The title identifies the work accomplished and should be descriptive rather than vague and immediately inform the reader about the work you are about to describe. Also include on the title page your full name, your affiliation (in most cases, this will be the Department of Biological Sciences, the George Washington University), a contact address (which nowadays is an email address) and the date of submission on the manuscript. The title should be informative and specific and accurately indicate the major focus of your work. For example, a title:  “The Isolation of Bacteria from Raw and Cooked Food Samples”  is too general and unfocused. A more descriptive title is:  “A Quantitative Study of Fecal Coliforms Found in Cooked and Raw Samples of Minced Beef.”

Similarly, a paper that is titled:  “Isolation of Staphylococcus aureus From Swimming Pools”  is best replaced by a title that reflects the research more specifically:  “Isolation and Characterization of Chlorine-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus from the Recreational Indoor Swimming Pool in the Lerner Health Center of the George Washington University.”

The title may also reflect the major finding of the research:  “Halobacterium Species Isolated from Salt Water Marshes near the Patapsco River Estuary of the Chesapeake Bay.”

Bear in mind that with the large number of research papers published each month, indexing services rely heavily on the titles of papers, as do scientists scanning the literature for papers pertinent to their own fields of research.  

The Abstract is a summary of the major points of the paper, including the purpose of the research, the methods used, the results obtained, and the conclusions drawn from them. The Abstract typically consists of a single paragraph of about three hundred words. It should be borne in minds that, together with the Title, the Abstract will be read by many people who may not necessarily read the rest of the paper. Therefore, this section of the paper must stand on its own. It is also the most difficult part of the paper to write because you must summarize, in a short space, the entire scope of your project. The excerpt below reflects a typical first draft, followed by an acceptable revision.

Example 1: First Draft

“Cell phones may harbor all kinds of bacteria and the purpose of this study was to isolate  Staphylococcus aureus , a potentially pathogenic microbe. Several cell phones were employed in this study. The phones were swabbed and S, aureus isolated by growth on mannitol salts agar plates. A number of techniques were used to test the colonies. The resultant colonies were tested by gram-staining, for mannitol fermentation, and oxidase and catalase activity to confirm the isolation of S. aureus. Several isolates were then tested for antibiotic resistance using methicillin, ampicillin and penicillin. About 40% of the isolates tested positive for methicillin resistance and 20% were found to be resistant to ampicillin and penicillin. These results indicate that cell phones may be a source of potentially pathogenic, and antibiotic-resistance bacteria, and may well pose a significant public health threat.”

This example presents an interesting study but the Abstract is unfocused and vague. Why were cell phones chosen in particular for this study? How many cell phones were tested and how many were found to be contaminated with  S. aureus ? Why was mannitol salts agar used as the selective medium? The sentence, “A number of techniques were used to test the colonies” is superfluous and should have been removed. Although the analytical tests are indicated, the results are not. The author should have stated these precisely in order to convince the reader that  S. aureus  strains were, in fact, isolated. The studies on the antibiotic resistances of the isolates unnecessarily are presented in a vague manner. Again, the author should have briefly justified why these particular antibiotics were chosen and given the actual numbers of isolates that were tested and found to be resistant to different antibiotics as well as the percentages. Finally, the last sentence is too dramatic and not warranted based upon this present study. A more conservative conclusion is called for. All these points are reflected in the revision:

Example 2: Revised Abstract

“Over the past decade, advances in cellular technology have contributed to increases in cell phone usage. Cellular devices have become an integral form of communication and are used by over 23 million people worldwide. Phone conversations, text messaging, and emailing, are all behaviors associated with cell phone use, and require the skin to be in contact with these devices. We hypothesized that cell phones may harbor  Staphylococcus aureus. S. aureus  is a bacterium that inhabits human skin. Certain strains of  S. aureus  are capable of causing disease and some are antibiotic-resistant. In an effort to determine if  S. aureus  was associated with cell phones, sterile swab samples were collected from twelve different phones (flip and non-flip styles) and plated onto mannitol salts agar medium which is recommended for the isolation and identification of  S. aureus . Putative  S. aureus  colonies were obtained from all the phones tested. 192 out of 200 colonies tested positive for mannitol fermentation and were characterized further. All bacteria were gram positive, aggregated cocci and tested positive for oxidase and negative for catalase, confirming the isolation of  S.aureus  by Bergey’s criteria. Previous studies have shown that many S. aureus strains have developed resistance to the β-lactam class of antibiotics. Therefore, 40 randomly selected isolates were tested for resistance to three β-lactam antibiotics, methicillin, ampicillin and penicillin, widely used in medicine. Results from the Kirby Bauer procedure suggested that 16 (40%) of the isolates were methicillin-resistant and 8 (20%) were additionally resistant to both ampicillin and penicillin. The results of this investigation suggest that cell phones may pose public health concerns.

This version of the Abstract is much better. It begins by stating the problem and justifying the research. Results rather than procedures are emphasized. The hypothesis is clearly stated and the major data clearly presented, substantiating the isolation of antibiotic-resistant  S. aureus  and lending credence to the author’s hypothesis. Note, too, that the Abstract is written in the past tense, and abbreviations, literature citations and figures are not present.  

INTRODUCTION

The Introduction provides a framework for the paper including a background (which is often in the form of a literature review) of the topic, and the purpose of the work. This section should be neither too broad nor too narrow. There is no specific length requirement but generally this section can be written in two main paragraphs. The first paragraph should summarize prior research in the area that you have studied. Do not provide a detailed and extensive literature review but instead confine the background information to what is strictly relevant to the work you’ve undertaken. Be sure to indicate references in the text (this will be discussed later). This paragraph must be written in the past tense. In the next paragraph, describe the unique aspects of your work (written in the present or, as appropriate, the future tense); that is to say, provide a justification (and a hypothesis) for the work you’ve carried out. For example, how does your research contribute to the studies undertaken by previous authors? What new information is your research attempting to discover and clarify? You may also briefly preview some of the results in order to lend credence to the importance of your study. Since your paper will be evaluated by your peers and the instructors, the scope of the introduction should be aimed at this audience.

You must follow the conventions of the International Union of Microbiological Societies ( http://www.iums.org ) in naming bacterial species. The convention specifies that binomial names of species must be used and underlined or italicized in the text. When a microbe is first named, its full genus and species name must be written; thereafter, the genus name can be abbreviated. Thus, the species  Pseudomonas fluorescens  must be stated in full when first introduced, but afterwards shortened to  P. flourescens . Do not confuse proper nouns with common nouns.  P. fluorescens  is a particular species, but the term pseudomonads (which is not italicized) refers to many of these species. Similarly, staphylococci are a wide range of bacteria that exhibit a similar shape and aggregation, whereas  Staphylococcus  is a particular genus that exhibits these properties.  

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This section provides the information which will enable other researchers to reproduce the experiments you have carried out. It describes the procedures you used to conduct your research, the controls you incorporated and the means by which you evaluated your data. It is important to be precise. The materials and procedures you carried out lend credibility to your scientific arguments presented later. Similar experiments carried out by others may not always yield the same conclusions, reflecting, perhaps, different interpretations of the data. In addition, this section will provide critical information to others who may be working on similar research and may need to use experimental approaches and techniques similar to the one you employed. Throughout, use the past tense.

Make sure that you organize the description of experiments logically and methodically, in the order that they were performed. It is helpful to organize this section into subheadings, beginning with a description of the materials used in the project. This makes the text easier to write and makes it more understandable, and easier to follow, for the reader. You do not need to provide an extensive list of all the materials you used, such as Petri dishes, gram stain reagent kits, and other common purpose items. You simply state that all chemicals and apparatuses “were provided by the Department of Biological Sciences, the George Washington University”. However, you must relate carefully the sources of your specimens, how they were collected and under what conditions. In addition, if you used standard bacterial strains in your study, these must be described and their sources noted. When describing the methods you used, again be precise, but not over-descriptive. Common microbiological techniques, such as Gram staining, oxidase testing, etc., do not need to be described but simply referenced in the text (usually, you will cite the laboratory manuals). It is necessary, however, to emphasize the purpose for using particular procedures, but be careful not to describe any results until the next section.

Avoid common grammatical errors which often pop up in this section. Media (not mediums) is the plural of medium; datum (singular) should not be confused with data (plural). Never use phrases such as, “The  S. epidermidis -containing cultures were…” when you mean “The samples containing  S. epidermidis  were…” Surely, you would never write, “The coffee-containing cup was…”?  

This section presents the data you accumulated in the course of the study. Once more, the narrative must be in the past tense. Before writing this section, it is advisable that you first construct the tables and figures you will be presenting in the text (see later). Be sure to reference each table and figure in the text (as Table 1, Figure 2, etc.) In the text, it is best to summarize the data and point out important facts and trends; the details can be included in the tables and figures. In order to present the data effectively, this section must be well-organized, preferably in the sequence in which you described your methods. Since many projects will involve the isolation of novel microorganisms, you should carefully designate each isolate, preferably using letters and/or numbers, as follows: “Two isolates, chosen for further characterization, were designated GH104 and KJ106. The characteristics of both strains are summarized in Table 3. After describing the characteristics of a particular isolate, you can then propose a putative identification. Thus,  “Isolate HG411 was found to be a large Gram-positive motile bacillus, often occurring in short chains. It was non-fermentative and tested negative for nitrate reductase. It did not grow in anaerobic medium leading us to hypothesize that it was an obligate aerobe. This was substantiated by positive results for both oxidase and catalase activities. In addition, the presence of clearly defined endospores, shown by malachite green staining, led to the tentative identification of HG411 as  Bacillus cereus .”  Note that the author is careful to point out that this is only a tentative identification. It would take many more weeks of experimentation, probably using determinative tests unavailable to us, to confirm this deduction. Of course, these further tests can, and should, be described in the Discussion

When writing the Results (and Discussion), do so in a direct, straightforward manner. Use the past tense. The use of simple and effective prose is more likely to convey your ideas to the reader (the excerpt above is an excellent example of this kind of writing). Use short sentences. One of the most common errors in writing papers is a tendency to wordiness and the use of jargon. Most jargon is long-winded and confusing, employing words that are unfamiliar to a general reader and this can change what should be an interesting paper into one that is tedious and even boring to read. In fact, it often has the effect of alienating rather than engaging the reader. In addition, you are encouraged to avoid wordiness and the use of redundant phrases. Common modifiers such as “very, “rather” and “quite” are unnecessary and should not be used. Other common examples of wordiness, and how they might be corrected, are given below. Note that simple direct phrases and sentences have a clear and confident tone.

The results would seem to indicate…. The results indicated….

Due to the fact that…. Because….

It may be that…. Perhaps….

A further piece of evidence that pointed…. Further evidence was….

The following day, after 24 hours of incubation, Colonial growth was observed after 24 the plates were removed from the incubator hours of incubation. and observed.

The data indicated that strain AB14 was a Gram- Strain AB14 was a Gram-negative bacillus. bacillus.

Many writers are torn between whether they should write the paper in the active or passive voice. In the former, the subject performs the action; in the latter, the subject receives the action. Too much use of the active voice has the tendency to make the text monotonous because of too many first-person references. On the other hand, overuse of the passive voice can cause the tone of the paper to be dry, boring and even pompous. To ensure that the text is more lively and readable, it is best to try and strike a balance. Consider the following example:

“We used eosin-methylene blue agar plates for the preliminary isolation  of P. aeruginosa . The bacteria were Gram-negative bacilli, and motile. The results for oxidase and catalase activities were negative. Additional experiments showed that the bacteria did not ferment glucose, galactose, maltose or lactose (Table 2). Based on these results, we concluded that the organism had an oxidative metabolism.

Try translating this in to an entirely passive or active tone. You’ll notice that the creative mix of both voices makes this narrative not only lively and engaging but also states the results in a clear, confident and unambiguous manner.  

In this section, you will interpret the results in the context of the questions and hypothesis you explicated in the Introduction, as well as addressing broader issues that were raised by your research. Before you begin, consider the issues raised by your results. Were they the results you expected? Did they support your hypothesis or not? If they did, your Discussion will be brief: if they did not, then you must consider alternative explanations. How might you address any unexpected results in future research? What future directions might this research follow? Finally, what are the scientific and/or public health implications of your research? It is important that you draw your conclusions from the data you obtained and relate them to previously published work (which, of course, must be cited). Your results may be open to many interpretations, but only you can decide which one(s) are the most significant.

It is essential that the text convey confidence in your results and conclusions. Avoid ambiguity and uncertainty. For example, consider the extract below:

“ Our analysis of Georgetown Canal water samples showed that  E. coli  was present in excess of 10 3  cfu/ml; however, quantitative data on other coliform bacteria were not completed. This study must, therefore, be considered only as a preliminary study.”

The statement, although strong to begin with, ends on an evasive and inconclusive note that leads the reader to doubt the author’s belief in her own research. An acceptable revision would read as follows:

Our analysis of the Georgetown canal water samples showed that  E. coli  was greater than 10 3  cfu/ml. The presence of other coliform bacteria was not investigated but our results clearly indicate that the fecal contamination of the canal is in excess of city standards for public health (reference). In view of these results, we propose that further investigation on the canal be carried out.

This narrative is much more confident. It emphasizes the results and points to their significance, and the reader, in return, is assured of the author’s credibility. Furthermore, the author’s proposal for future research, asserted by these bold statements, appears authoritative, logical and fully justified.  

Documenting your paper thoroughly is a hallmark of good scientific writing. Any ideas or results which are not your own must be cited at the appropriate places. Cite sources in the text using the format recommended by the Council of Science Editors (CSE:  www.councilscienceeditors.org ), often referred to as the name-year system (this is different from the format specified by the Journal of Bacteriology). For example,  “ Staphyococcus aureus  is a Gram-positive coccus, widespread in nature, which has been implicated in a number of human and animal diseases (Tolura, 2008)”  or  “Shimkets and Dworkin (1998) point out that many  Myxococcus  species…”  or  “Water samples were evaluated for  E. coli  contamination following the procedure described by Nathan (2002). ” You do not need to repeat the citation for every sentence attributable to a particular source. However, if you are discussing the work at some length it is advisable to cite the reference at the beginning and the end of the paragraph to indicate that you are still referring to the same source. Do not reference general material that is widely known. For your major sources, you may include your textbook, laboratory manuals, published research and review papers and class handouts. If one or more of your sources is attributable to word of mouth (a discussion with the instructor, for example) then indicate this in the text as “(Morris, DW, personal communication).” This is not repeated in the References section. Use quotations from other authors only sparingly in the text when you need to emphasize a particularly significant aspect that has drawn wide attention.

Sources in the References section can be ordered as they appear in the text or alphabetically. Common examples are given below.

Tolura, GM. 2006. Microbiology. 4 th  ed. San Francisco: WH Freeman. 670 p.

Article or Chapter in an Edited Book

Shimkets, LM, Dworkin, M. 1998. The Myxobacteria. In: Shapiro, JM, Dworkin, M. editors. Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific. p. 121-145.

Journal Article with a Single Author

Neu, H. 1992.. The Crisis in antibiotic resistance. Science. 306: 1064-1073.

Journal Article with Two or More Authors

Chanishvili, N, Chanishvili, T, Tediashvili, NM, Barrow , PA. 2001. Phages and their application against drug-resistant bacteria”.  J. Chem. Technol .  36: 192-198.

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (2000).  Facilities: Water Treatment . Retrieved October 29, 2008, from DC Water and Sewer Authority Web site:  https://www.dcwater.com/

Course Handouts or Laboratory Manuals

Morris, DW. 2008. Biological Sciences 137 Laboratory Manual: The George Washington University. 112 p.  

TABLES AND FIGURES

Most scientific papers are supplemented with tables and figures that summarize and present essential data that convey information more effectively than the text. All must be of high quality. When you begin to construct your tables and figures, you must decide how you are going to depict your data most effectively. Is a graph more effective than a table? Do you need both? You must ultimately decide how best to display your data so that it is a convincing argument for your hypothesis and emphasizes the major findings of you research. When you have made your tables and figures, number them consecutively in the order they are referred to in the text. Each should have a title and a brief descriptive legend. It is important that each table and figure stand on its own and still be understandable to the reader.

A common fault beginners make is to include all their data in the form of tables and figures. However, this is unnecessary and in some instances, data can be more easily and more effectively summarized in the text. Tables and figures must include only selective and important data. For example, the table below reflects uniform data and is unnecessary. The data may be explained more concisely in the text as,  “All three strains (NM 102 – 104), originally isolated on mannitol salts agar, were found to be non-motile gram-positive staphylococci and tested positive for catalase and negative for oxidase.”  Tables must display more variable data. The examples in your laboratory manuals contain many good examples.

Table 2 : Morphological and Physiological Characteristics of Thee Independent Clones Isolated on Mannitol Salts Agar.

Key:  1  + indicates a gram positive reaction; – indicates a gram negative reaction.  2 + indicates a positive reaction; – indicates no reaction.

Similarly, photographs or drawings of microbial cells can be omitted and described in the text, unless you are pointing out important features on the illustration. If you present graphs, clearly label each axis. Do not be tempted to provide a graph and a table of the same data: one or the other is sufficient.  

DRAFTING AND REVISING

You can expect to produce several drafts of your paper before it is ready for submission. Before you begin, study the instructions for the paper format carefully so that your paper is organized properly from the beginning. In fact, for the first draft, you should concentrate on the content and organization of the paper, and write down all of the information that you wish to include in the paper. Later, you can focus on style, grammar and punctuation. Start with the easiest writing rather than at the beginning. I find that writing the Materials and Methods first is best and it can usually be commenced before the project is finished. Alternatively, you may want to start with the Introduction since much of this can be adapted from your proposal. Be sure to prepare the Tables and Figures before you start writing the Results and Discussion sections. Generally, it is best to write the Abstract last of all, once all of the other sections of the paper have been completed. Be sure the follow the guidelines outline above.

I have found that there is a marked tendency for many beginning writers, lacking confidence in the power of their own prose, to rely on the quotations of other authors when wishing to make important points. This does not necessarily enhance the text and can, in fact, cause the reader to doubt the originality of the paper. It is perfectly permissible to paraphrase carefully material from other authors’ papers as long as the sources are cited. However, if you determine that a quotation will emphasize a particular point you are making, keep it short. A representative example is:  “Baker (2007) describes  Campylobacter jejunii  as the ‘major causative agent of food poisoning deaths among children under five years of age in the U.S.’ His experimental data indicated that at least 67% of reported food poisoning cases were due to this organism.”  The carefully selected quotation, enclosed within the author’s own text, emphasizes, and adds veracity to, the point the author wants to make.

Once you have written the first draft, go through the paper and check that is correctly formatted before you begin revising the text. Pay careful attention to grammar and punctuation. If you have a spell checker on your word processing program, by all means use it, but do not rely on it to detect all errors: these can only be spotted by carefully reading the draft. Proofreading can be tedious, especially if you have spent many hours writing the drafts. However, it is a task that must be performed with the utmost care. I have found that the best way to spot mistakes is to read the paper aloud, either to yourself or someone else. This practice will also enable to revise sentences that are unduly long or drawn out.  

Research Proposal

The research proposal has much in common with the research paper. The proposal asks a question or poses a hypothesis that can be tested experimentally. There is no standard format for proposals, but it is important to conform to the guidelines laid down by the funding agency or organization. Your proposal must adhere to the format given below. The text must be double-spaced and include one-inch margins either side. Refer to Blackboard for sample proposals. The proposal must consist of five sections, beginning with a descriptive  Title . The  Introduction  presents a review of the literature pertinent to the proposed research and leads to  Research Aims  which explicitly states the research question being asked and outlines its significance. The  Methods  section outlines your experimental strategy and, finally, the  References  section records your sources for the proposal.  

A full title of the project, your departmental affiliation and the due date for submission of the proposal should be presented on a single page. You will be working in groups of two or three but each individual must submit her/his proposal independently. The title, as with the research paper, must be specific and informative. The author’s name, affiliation and the submission date must also appear on this page.  

Background information (that is, a brief review of the literature concerning the topic of your proposal) should be presented in this section. To do a good job, you must read the literature carefully and selectively. Be aware of who you are writing for: in this case it will be your instructor and must, therefore, be scientifically accurate. This section should conclude with a short paragraph that states the research problem to be addressed by your proposal.  

RESEARCH AIMS

The next two sections must be written in the future tense. In this section, clearly state the research objectives of your proposal. It is essential that you justify the aims of the proposal. How will it enlarge, clarify or disprove existing knowledge. What makes your proposal unique? Make your arguments convincing, citing references if appropriate. Try to predict the outcome(s) of your research. Finally, is the proposal adequate to address the research problem you have posed, or is it a preliminary investigation? Remember, you only have three weeks in which to carry out the research so you must be realistic about what you can accomplish in this short time.  

Describe the experiments to be conducted and the order in which they will be carried out. If you expect problems or ambiguities to arise, how would you explain or solve them? A detailed description of each experimental step need not be given (procedures for common microbiological techniques, such as Gram staining for example, should not be detailed at all) as long as the procedures are referenced and you explain why you are using this strategy. Point out the kinds of data you expect to generate and how you would evaluate and interpret it. Finally, be careful to explain how the data would support your hypothesis.  

References should be indicated in the text and cited in this section in the name-year manner as in the research paper.  

The WID Studio is a primary source of help and students are encouraged to use this facility. Two recent and helpful books on writing in the biological sciences are also available:

McMillan, VE. 2006. Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences. 4 th  ed. Boston: Bedford/St.Martins. 269 p.

Pechenik, JA. 2007 A Short Guide to Writing about Biology. 6 th  ed. New York: Pearson Longman. 281 p.

How to Write a Microbiology Research Proposal

How to Get a Ph.D. in Biology

Microbiology is the study of small organisms such as pathogens and bacteria. You can not see these organisms with your naked eye, you must use a microscope. Obtaining a degree in microbiology will prepare you for careers in pharmaceuticals, chemistry and quality control. A microbiology research proposal is a paper in which you choose a topic of interest and need, research it and present to a panel of reviewers as evidence of your knowledge of microbiology. This proposal is needed in completion in order to receive your graduate level degree in microbiology.

Clarify your topic. Make sure you provide enough information and background on your subject so anyone can follow and understand your proposal. The review panels may not be professionals in microbiology. Do not include unnecessary information away from the topic.

Write your proposal as if it were your final version. This will allow you to get constructive criticism that will help your final paper be the best possible.

Talk about your proposal with other colleagues. This will allow you to gather enough information to come up with two preproposals. Preproposals are one to two pages in length. One of your preproposals will become your chosen proposal topic.

Make sure you have all of the necessary pages of your proposal. Begin with the abstract. The abstract summarizes the points of your proposal in a short overview. Discuss the problem and how you will address it.

Discuss specific aims. Questions that your paper will answer are written in this section. Write it in outline format. It sets the outline of the experimental design portion of your proposal. Set realistic goals you can attain in two to three years in this section.

Discuss the background and significance. This is a lengthy section made up of several pages. This section makes the following sections clear to the panel. Cite former information about your profession that has already been published, here. You should also get across to your review panel that your proposal is important.

Discuss previous results. This shows your panel you are working on your proposal by providing them with statistics and information you have gathered thus far.

Write the experimental design section. This section lets your panel know you understand your proposal and you will have readable results. Here you will defend your work in detail. Make your goals and priorities apparent here.

Create a timetable. In this brief section let the panel know when you anticipate your proposal will be finished.

Create a list of literature cited. This is a standard reference page in which you list your sources.

Make sure your microbiology research proposal meets standard National Institute of Health format guidelines.

Related Articles

How to Make a Rough Draft on Science Projects

How to Write a Discussion for a Science Fair Project

How to Write a Dissertation Summary

The Advantages of a Ph.D. in Biotechnology

How to Do an In-Depth Analysis Essay

How to write a humanities paper

How to Write a Technical Essay

How to Write a Research Plan for a Science Project

Lessons and Courses on Microbiology

The Proposal Writer’s Guide

Introduction.

Writing a proposal for a sponsored activity such as a research project or a curriculum development program is a problem of persuasion. It is well to assume that your reader is a busy, impatient, skeptical person who has no reason to give your proposal special consideration and who is faced with many more requests than he can grant, or even read thoroughly. Such a reader wants to find out quickly and easily the answers to these questions.

• What do you want to do, how much will it cost, and how much time will it take?
• How does the proposed project relate to the sponsor’s interests?
• What difference will the project make to: your students, your field, your patients, the state, the nation, the world, or whatever the appropriate categories are?
• What has already been done in the area of your project?
• How do you plan to do it?
• How will the results be evaluated or analyzed?
• Why should you, rather than someone else, do this project?

These questions will be answered in different ways and receive different emphases depending on the nature of the proposed project and on the agency to which the proposal is being submitted. Most agencies provide detailed instructions or guidelines concerning the preparation of proposals (and, in some cases, forms on which proposals are to be uploaded); obviously, such guidelines should be studied carefully before you begin writing the draft.

Bottom line: The principal investigator needs to keep in mind that a Grant Proposal is as much a marketing document as an intellectual document.

Preliminary Steps

You will benefit by consulting a few key individuals at an early stage in the planning of the proposal.

• The Sponsor’s Program Officer (PO). Regardless of the funding agency, it is advisable (and sometimes required) to contact the program officer for the purposes of introducing yourself and your work. Let him or her know that you plan to apply, and seek their input on the program relevance of your proposed work. The PO also can discuss the latest agency guidelines, and can explain funding peculiarities that might affect your preparation of the proposal, such as the review process. In most cases, email the individual with a brief message introducing yourself and your project. Append a 1-2 page summary of your work and request feedback regarding the fit with the sponsor’s funding priorities; be sure that there is an adequate amount of time for the PO to respond before the deadline. Request a follow-up phone call and leave your contact information. If you have not heard from the PO in a week or so, follow up with a phone call.  
• Your department research administrator. This person will greatly appreciate advanced notice of your intent to submit as he or she will likely help you prepare the budget and application for submission, and will oversee the internal routing process of the Proposal Approval Form. The research administrator may also refer you to others on campus who may assist in issues such as human subjects review, the use of animals, potential conflicts of interest, off-campus work, subcontracting, space rental, staff additions, consultants, equipment purchase, biological hazards, proprietary material, cost sharing, and many other matters.  
• Your Chair/Dean. The department chair, whom you will eventually ask to approve the proposal and thereby endorse your plans for personnel and facility commitments, should be informed of your intentions and especially of any aspect of the proposed project that might conceivably affect departmental administration or your departmental duties. Early discussion of potential problems will smooth the way for the proposal. Several schools and colleges have associate deans with special responsibilities for sponsored programs. These persons can provide valuable help and advice both in substantive and administrative matters. They also may be able to suggest key collaborators or resources, and perhaps will be willing to review a draft before submission.

Research Proposals – Parts of a Proposal

Parts of a proposal.

Proposals for sponsored activities generally follow a similar format, although there are variations depending upon the sponsor and whether the PI is seeking support for a research grant, a training grant, or a conference or curriculum development project. Be sure to follow the outline contained in the sponsor’s guidelines. The following generic outline is generally focused on the components of a research proposal. (The follow-on section describes format variations required for other kinds of academic programs.)

Research Proposals

Typical parts of a research proposal are outlined below. Note that examples are pulled from databases of awards from either federal agencies (i.e., NSF and NIH) or foundations.

Cover Letter

Abstract or summary.

• Table of Contents
• Background or Significance
• Project Purpose
• Plan or Approach
• Institutional Resources
• ​Biosketches

This (usually optional) letter may be used to convey information that is pertinent to the review of the proposal. Make sure you identify your name, the University of Michigan, project title, RFP or and specific funding mechanism if any. Depending on sponsor’s regulations, this letter may be used to request a reviewer or a specific study section with special expertise in your field, or to identify conflicts with potential reviewers. Sometimes this letter is used to explain special circumstances, e.g., budget outside of limits, missed deadline, unique subawards, request to send in delayed preliminary data results before review date. State if you have attached any special approval documentation pertaining to any of the above.

The Title (or Cover) Page

Most sponsoring agencies specify the format for the title page, and some provide special forms to summarize basic administrative and fiscal data for the project. Generally, the principal investigator (PI), his or her department head, and an official representing the University sign the title page.

A good  title  is usually a compromise between conciseness and explicitness. One good way to cut the length of titles is to avoid words that add nothing to a reader’s understanding, such as “Studies on…,” “Investigations…,” or “Research on Some Problems in….” The title needs to: match interests of reviewers; use appropriate key words; be specific to the work to be accomplished; and be long enough to distinguish it from other studies in the field, but not too long to bore the reader. Examples of good titles are: “Applications of the motivic Becker-Gottlieb transfer,” “Advancing engineering education through virtual communities of practice,” “Structural controls of functional receptor and antibody binding to viral capsids,” “Active tectonics of the Africa-Eurasia zone of plate interaction in the Western Mediterranean.”

Every proposal should have an abstract. The abstract forms the reader’s initial impression of the work, and therefore plays a big role on whether the application is funded. The abstract speaks for the proposal when it is separated from it, provides the reader with his or her first impression of the request, and, by acting as a summary, frequently provides the reader their last impression. Some reviewers read only the abstract, e.g., a foundation board of directors’ member who votes on final funding decisions. Thus it is the most important single element in the proposal.

To present the essential meaning of the proposal, the abstract should summarize the significance (need) of the work, the hypothesis and major objectives of the project, the procedures to be followed to accomplish the objectives, and the potential impact of the work. Though it appears first, the abstract should be edited last, as a concise summary of the proposal. Length depends on sponsor’s guidelines (from ½ to 2 pages).

Agencies often use the abstract verbatim to disseminate award information.

The Table of Contents (ToC)

Whether to include a ToC depends on (a) the direction in the guidelines, and (b) the complexity and length of the proposal.

Very brief proposals with few sections ordinarily do not need a table of contents; the guiding consideration in this is the reader’s convenience.

Long and detailed proposals may require, in addition to a table of contents, a list of illustrations (or figures) and a list of tables.

If all of these are included, they should follow the order mentioned, and each should be numbered with lower-case Roman numerals. If they are brief, more than one can be put on a single page. 

The Background Section or Significance (Need) for the Work

This section will be labeled differently depending on the guidelines. It addresses why the proposed work is important in the field, and answers the question, “so what?” In this section, provide the status quo of the relevant work field and identify a gap in knowledge or activities that must be filled to move the field forward. Sufficient details should be given in this discussion (1) to make clear what the research problem is and exactly what has been accomplished; (2) to give evidence of your own competence in the field; and (3) to show why the previous work needs to be continued.

Literature reviews should be selective and critical. Reviewers do not want to read through a voluminous working bibliography; they want to know the pertinent works and your evaluation of them. Discussions of work done by others should therefore lead the reader to a clear impression of how you will be building upon what has already been done and how your work differs from theirs. It is important to establish what is original in your approach (innovative), what circumstances have changed since related work was done, or what is unique about the time and place of the proposed research. Note: guidelines may require a separate section for innovation or for transformative potential of the work.

This is one place where a PI may include their own work (and that of their research team) related or preliminary to the proposed study. Preliminary data or pilot studies must relate directly to the hypothesis or aims, and show the reviewer that the aims are feasible and the team has the required experience and skills. Data may or may not be published, but published data have more credibility.

Purpose of the Project (Aims or Objectives)

This section describes what will be accomplished or tested in the project.

Research proposals usually are focused on a central hypothesis. A good research grant hypothesis is a testable, focused, clear, declarative statement of relationships between variables based on previous observations. Sometimes research questions are used in place of hypotheses, especially if work is in early stages. And sometimes working hypotheses (per aim) are used in place of a central hypothesis. This decision is often based on common practice in the discipline or field.

The objectives (or aims) should focus on outcome as opposed to process . For example, the outcome of the work is “ To identify the candidate allele; ” while the process of getting there includes “ to run several trials on samples .” There should be 2 to 4 outcome objectives per proposal. When writing aims, use active, measurable terms, e.g., to identify , to characterize vs. to study . 

Research Plan (Approach)

This section includes a comprehensive explanation of the proposed research, and is addressed to other specialists in your field (not to laymen). The section is the heart of the proposal and is the primary concern of the technical reviewers. To make it clear and easy to follow, you may need several subsections tailored to your work. Research design is a large subject and cannot be covered here, but a few reminders concerning frequently mishandled aspects of proposals may be helpful.  

• Be realistic in designing the program of work. Overly optimistic notions of what the project can accomplish in one, two, or three years, or of its effects on the world, will only detract from the proposal’s chances of being approved. A frequent comment made by reviewers to new investigators is “the work is too ambitious.” Research plans should be scaled down to a more specific and manageable project that will permit the approach to be evaluated and, if successful, will form a sound basis for further work. In other words, your proposal should distinguish clearly between long-range research goals and the short-range objectives (2 – 4) for which funding is being sought.  
• If your first year must be spent developing an analytical method or laying groundwork, spell that out as Phase 1. Then at the end of the year you will be able to report that you have accomplished something and are ready to undertake Phase 2.
• Be clear about the focus of the research. Be explicit about the hypotheses the research method rests upon, and restate the aims from the Purpose section.
• Be as detailed as possible about the schedule of the proposed work. When will the first step be completed? When can subsequent steps be started? What must be done before what else, and what can be done at the same time? A Timeline detailing the projected sequence and interrelationship of major tasks often gives the sponsor assurance that the investigator is capable of careful step-by-step planning, and that the work will be accomplished in an efficient and feasible manner.  
• If you are proposing new, risky or unorthodox methods, be sure to include adequate justification, e.g., references in literature about success of these methods in similar studies.
• Be specific about the means of evaluating the data, conducting the analysis, or determining the conclusions. Try to imagine the questions or objections of a hostile critic and show that the research plan anticipates them. This is a good reason to have your proposal pre-reviewed by peers in your field before sending to the sponsor.
• Be certain that the connection between the research objectives and the research method is evident. If a reviewer fails to see this connection, s/he will probably not give your proposal any further consideration.

List of References

If a list of references is to be included, it is placed at the end of the text. This section typically is not counted in the page limitation of the Research Description.

In the text, references to the list can be made in various ways; a simple way is to use a raised number at the appropriate place, like this.1 Such numbers should be placed outside any contiguous marks of punctuation. If you have space, you might consider the American Psychological Association style because the reader does not have to refer to the reference list to see authors and data of publication, e.g., (Wiseguy, 2014).

The style of the bibliographical item itself depends on the disciplinary field. The main consideration is consistency; whatever style is chosen should be followed scrupulously throughout. In most cases in bibliography, you will not use “et al” but will include full names of authors.

Remember, NSF applications need to include specific activities in response to their criterion of Broader Impacts in several sections (Summary, Recent NSF Support, Project Description). 

The Description of Relevant Institutional Resources/Environment

The nature of this section depends on your project, but in general this section details the resources available to the proposed project. It underscores why the sponsor should wish to choose this University and this investigator(s) for this particular research. Some relevant points may be the institution’s demonstrated competence in the pertinent research area, its abundance of experts in related areas that may benefit the project, its supportive services that will directly benefit the project, and its unique or unusual research facilities or instruments available to the project.

When collaborating with another institution, that partner also will submit an Institutional Resources section.

The Budget Section: Budget & Budget Justification

The budget is a line item (tabular) representation of the expenses associated with the proposal project. The Budget Justification contains more in depth detail of the costs behind the line items, and sometimes explains the use of the funds where not evident. Examples include the need for consultants, or the unavailability within the University of an item of equipment proposed for purchase. Foreign travel should be specifically detailed and justified, and not combined with domestic travel. The need to travel to professional meetings should be tied to the proposed project, if possible.

Cost estimates need to be as accurate as possible to cover the expenses proposed in the project. Reviewers will note both over- and under-estimations.

The budget should be developed with your departmental research administrator, in consultation with the appropriate ORSP project representative as needed. Sponsors customarily specify how budgets should be presented and what costs are allowable. The overview given here is for preliminary guidance only.

Typical divisions of the line item (tabular) budget are personnel, equipment, supplies, services, travel, and indirect costs (IDC). Other categories can be added as needed. The budget should make clear how the totals for each category of expenses are reached. Salary information, for example, often needs to be specified in detail: principal investigator (.5 FTE for 3 months at $80,000 [9-month appointment]) = $13,333. Make clear if salary totals involve two different rates (e.g., because of an anticipated increase in salary during the budget period).

The category of Personnel includes not only the base salary or wage for each person on the project, but also (listed separately) the percentage added for staff benefits. The current figure used for approximately the average cost of staff benefits is 30% of the total salaries and wages. Project representatives should be consulted on the calculation of staff benefits, because the rate may vary significantly depending on the kinds of personnel involved and the selected benefit option. A table is available from ORSP.

Graduate Student Research Assistants, who are to be employed on research projects for more than 1/2 time, may have part of their tuition costs covered by their unit. The remaining tuition costs must be included as a line item in the budget to the sponsor.

Indirect costs (IDC) are shown as a separate category, usually as the last item before the grand total. Indirect costs are figured as a fixed percentage of the total direct costs (modified by various exceptions).  For federally funded grants, some items are excluded from IDC, e.g., equipment (over $5,000), graduate research assistant tuition, and the balance of subcontracts over $25,000.

Because indirect cost percentages change after periodic negotiations with the federal government, PIs should consult their departmental research administrator or an ORSP project representative before calculating this part of their budget.

If cost sharing is required (mandated) by the sponsor, please check with your departmental research administrator for how to show that in the budget. This must be approved by your Chair or Dean.

To call attention to the variety of expenses that might arise in the conduct of a research project, a  checklist * of possible budget items is included here. This checklist suggests many of the expenses that might be appropriate to your budget, but consultation with the ORSP project representative is important. S/he can help ensure (1) that the budget has not omitted appropriate elements of cost, such as service charges for the use of certain University facilities (for example, surveys conducted by the Institute for Social Research); (2) that any estimates for construction, alterations, or equipment installation have been properly obtained and recorded; (3) that costs are not duplicated between the direct and indirect cost categories; (4) that the budget complies with any cost-sharing requirements of the sponsor; (5) that provisions are made for the escalation of costs as may be appropriate; and (6) that costs in all categories are realistically estimated.

Checklist for Proposal Budget Items Directly Tied to the Project:

A. Salaries and Wages

1. Academic personnel 2. Research assistants 3. Stipends (training grants only) 4. Consultants 5. Interviewers 6. Computer programmer 7. Data managers or analysts 8. Administrators 10. Editorial assistants 11. Technicians 12. Study/clinical coordinators 13. Hourly personnel 14. Staff benefits 15. Salary increases in proposals that extend into a new year, e.g., Cost of Living increases 16. Vacation accrual and/or use B. Equipment

1. Fixed equipment 2. Movable equipment 3. Office equipment 4. Equipment installation C. Materials and Supplies

1. Office supplies specifically for project 2. Communications 3. Test materials or samples 4. Questionnaire forms 5. Data access 6. Animals 7. Animal care 8. Laboratory supplies 9. Glassware 10. Chemicals 11. Electronic supplies 12. Report materials and supplies D. Travel

1. Professional conferences 2. Field work 3. Sponsor meetings 4. Travel for consultation 5. Consultants’ travel 6. Mileage for research participants 7. Subsistence 8. Automobile rental 9. Aircraft rental 10. Ship rental

E. Services

1. Computer use/data storage 2. Duplication services (reports, etc.) 3. Publication costs 4. Photographic/graphic services 5. Service contracts 6. ISR services (e.g., surveys) 7. Data analysis

1. Space rental 2. Alterations and renovations 3. Purchase of data, periodicals, books 4. Subjects/Research participants 5. Patient reimbursement 6. Tuition and fees 7. Hospitalization 8. Subcontracts

The Appendices

Some writers are prone to append peripheral documents of various kinds to their proposals on the theory that the bulk will buttress their case. Most sponsors restrict what can be appended, if anything. If not restricted, remember that reviewers almost never read such appendices, and may resent “the padding.” The best rule of thumb is: When in doubt, leave it out.

Appendices are occasionally used for letters of endorsement or collaboration, and reprints of relevant articles if they are not available electronically. Other uses may be data tables, surveys, questionnaires, data collection instruments, clinical protocols, and informed consent documents, as allowed by the sponsor.

If two or more appendices are included in a proposal, they should be designated Appendix A, Appendix B, etc.

Biosketches

The Biosketch in a grant proposal gives the investigators the opportunity to highlight their expertise and experience related to the proposal work . The format and length may be specified in the guidelines. Education should include not only degrees, but additional courses or activities that underscore your skills in a relevant area. Under professional positions, be sure to include post doc experiences. Publications reflect your productivity, work record, and collegiality; the most valuable publications are full articles in peer review journals where the subject is relevant to the proposed work and the investigator is a primary contributor; you can include papers accepted for publication by a journal. Remember, you may be able to annotate individual publications to show how this relates to the proposed work.

If given the option to write a personal statement as part of the Biosketch, compose it thoughtfully. Describe not only your background and qualifications to conduct the proposed work (e.g., post doc work, experience in essential methodology), but your prior work with your co-investigators.

B. Proposals for Academic Programs

It may be that your need is not for a research grant, but for outside sponsorship of an academic program involving a new curriculum, a conference, a summer seminar, pipeline activities, or training. If so, once again your best proposal preparation is to carefully consult guidelines that the sponsoring agency provides, and communicate with the program officer (as above). In the event that guidelines are not available, crucial elements include:

Statement of Need for the Program : Be sure to describe unmet need in the field and gap in the current programing, and why it is important to fill the gap. Cite statistics and demographics as appropriate.

Objectives : Specify the intended outcomes such as developing a curriculum, recruiting participation in a field, synergizing new ideas, or offering education or skill training.

Program description : This section lists the courses, activities or instructional sessions to be offered; the interrelationship of parts; involvement of stakeholders if appropriate; and the program leading to certification or a degree. It discusses the students or participants to be selected and served by the program, as well as plans for faculty retreats, negotiation with cooperating institutions, released time to write instructional materials, and so on. As always, a Timeline is a good idea. Most sponsors want to see a plan for evaluating the outcome of the activities, e.g., academic or career tracking, publications, participation numbers, new databases, course evaluations.

Before concluding with the  Institutional Resources, Personnel , and  Budget  sections, special attention should be given to a section entitled Institutional Commitment . Here the agreements made by various departments and cooperating institutions are clarified, and the willingness of the home institution to carry on the program once it has proven itself is certified. This section is crucial to the success of curriculum development programs because, in contrast to research programs, they have a profound impact on the host institution. Funding agencies need to be reassured that their funds will not be wasted by an institution that has only responded to a funding opportunity without reflecting soberly upon the long-range commitments implied.

Inquiries to Private Foundations

Proposals to foundations have a better chance of succeeding if they are preceded by an informal contact. This contact is usually a brief (not more than two pages) letter outlining the proposed project, suggesting why the foundation should be interested in it, and requesting an appointment to discuss it in further detail. Such a letter permits an investigator to make inquiries to several foundations at once and gives an interested foundation the chance to offer suggestions before receiving the formal proposal. In many cases, the letter of inquiry is required for the purposes of either preparing for reviews or screening out non-responsive ideas. (Please note that it is still acceptable to contact the program officer before you submit your letter of inquiry.)

Most foundations have specific areas of interest for which they award funds. It is essential that the grant seeker identify those foundations whose interests match the proposed project. Seldom will a foundation fund a project outside of its stated field of interest.

The initial letter of inquiry should demonstrate that the investigator is acquainted with the work and purposes of the particular foundation being approached and should point out a clear connection between these and the proposed project. A letter so generally phrased that it could be a form letter is almost certain to be disregarded. An effective letter will discuss the significance or uniqueness of the project: Who will benefit? Who cares about the results? What difference will it make if the project is not funded? It will give enough indication of step-by-step planning to show that the project has been thought through and that pitfalls have been anticipated. It will demonstrate the writer’s grasp of the subject and his or her credentials to undertake the project. It will emphasize at the same time that this is a preliminary inquiry, not a formal proposal, and that the investigator will send further details if the foundation wishes, or, better yet, will visit the foundation to discuss the project in depth. It is unnecessary in the preliminary inquiry to include a detailed budget, although an overall cost estimate should be mentioned.

A good letter, then, might begin something like the following: “Because of the interest the __________ Foundation has shown in __________, I am writing to solicit its support for a project that will __________.” This should be followed by a sentence describing the program, the institution, and another one or two concerning the need for and uniqueness of the project.

The body of the letter should consist of three or four paragraphs giving the context or background of the project, its scope and methodology, the time required for its completion, the institutional commitments, and any special capabilities that will ensure the project’s success. A separate paragraph might be given to some of the major categories of the proposed budget, including a rounded total direct cost estimate, and mention of any matching fund or cost-sharing arrangements, either in dollars or in-kind contributions.

The last paragraph could be patterned along these lines: “Please let me know if you would like to discuss this idea further or have any questions. My contact information is ______________________. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your consideration.”

This letter of inquiry is crucially important, and in preparing it investigators should avail themselves of the advice and help of foundation relations staff in the Schools and Colleges. Contacting U-M Development’s Foundation Relations office for help in approaching and coordinating activities with foundations also is a good idea. Contacts with some foundations are controlled by this office and others are coordinated. UM Foundation Relations can provide valuable consultation, e.g., prior funding to the University of Michigan. Refer to their “Foundation Funding for Faculty” at foundations.umich.edu for advice on how to write a letter of inquiry, sample awarded proposals, foundation prospecting, etc.

Detailed information about the foundation’s priorities can be gleaned from the foundation’s annual reports and from the list of projects that the foundation has actually supported. 

Organizing Your Writing Approach

First, start (don’t finish) with the sponsor’s guidelines. Mark them as you study, noting such things as funder’s priorities, eligibility requirements, formatting details, deadline, content idiosyncrasies, review criteria, etc. The guidelines will probably specify certain topics or questions that must be addressed. If possible, use the sponsor’s exact phrases as your headings. You may even wish to borrow some of the language of the guidelines if it fits naturally into the framework of your proposal. For example, if the sponsor is looking for a “transdisciplinary” approaches to the problem, you would do well to use that term rather than “interdisciplinary” to describe the same activities.

Second, after you have studied the guidelines, if there are sections that are either too vague or too specific for comfort, check with the department research administrator who may be familiar with this opportunity. This way you will also alert the administrator to your intent to submit and allow them to plan the process. Alternatively, ORSP staff or the sponsor’s program staff may be able to provide a clarification.

Third, break the proposal up into small and simple subsections – especially if more than one person will be writing. Give each subsection headings and subheadings (referring again to the guidelines), and write slavishly to this outline. Using subheadings liberally will not only help you organize your material, but will also guide reviewers through your project description?

Fourth, compare your budget and your text to insure that for every cost figure a corresponding activity is mentioned and justified in the text.

Fifth, pay special attention to the abstract. Having rushed through the project description, you will find that careful construction of the abstract will serve both as a summary of what you intend to do and as a check on whether you have omitted any essential topics. Don’t just copy and paste your Aims or Significance section. Make this section fresh, informative and engaging; remember that the reviewer may go directly to your Project Description after reading the Abstract, so avoid redundant language.

Sixth, get an internal review from respected colleagues before you send to the funder for review!

Why Proposals Are Rejected

Assuming that funds are available, that eligibility is met, and that political considerations are not present, the success of a proposal will depend both on the quality of the project itself and the quality of its presentation in the proposal. Different reviewers, of course, will weigh merits and defects differently, but the following list of short-comings of 605 proposals rejected by the National Institutes of Health is worth pondering. The list is derived from an article by Dr. Ernest M. Allen (Chief of the Division of Research Grants, NIH) that appeared in Science, Vol. 132 (November 25, 1960), pp. 1532-34. (The percentages given total more than 100 because more than one item may have been cited for a particular proposal.)

A. Problem (Significance) (58%)

• The problem is not of sufficient importance or is unlikely to produce any new or useful information. (33.1)
• The proposed research is based on a hypothesis that rests on insufficient evidence, is doubtful, or is unsound. (8.9)
• The problem is more complex than the investigator appears to realize. (8.1)
• The problem has only local significance, or is one of production or control, or otherwise fails to fall sufficiently clearly within the general field of health-related research. (4.8)
• The problem is scientifically premature and warrants, at most, only a pilot study. (3.1)
• The research as proposed is overly involved, with too many elements under simultaneous investigation. (3.0)
• The description of the nature of the research and of its significance leaves the proposal nebulous and diffuse and without a clear research aim. (2.6)

B. Approach (73%)

• The proposed tests, or methods, or scientific procedures are unsuited to the stated objective. (34.7)
• The description of the approach is too nebulous, diffuse, and lacking in clarity to permit adequate evaluation. (28.8)
• The overall design of the study has not been carefully thought out. (14.7)
• The statistical aspects of the approach have not been given sufficient consideration. (8.1)
• The approach lacks scientific imagination. (7.4)
• Controls are either inadequately conceived or inadequately described. (6.8)
• The material the investigator proposes to use is unsuited to the objective of the study or is difficult to obtain. (3.8)
• The number of observations is unsuitable. (2.5)
• The equipment contemplated is outmoded or otherwise unsuitable. (1.0)

C. Investigator (55%)

• The investigator does not have adequate experience or training for this research. (32.6)
• The investigator appears to be unfamiliar with recent pertinent literature or methods. (13.7)
• The investigator’s previously published work in this field does not inspire confidence. (12.6)
• The investigator proposes to rely too heavily on insufficiently experienced associates. (5.0)
• The investigator is spreading themselves too thin; they will be more productive if they concentrate on fewer projects. (3.8)
• The investigator needs more liaisons with colleagues in this field or in collateral fields. (1.7)

D. Other (16%)

• The requirements for equipment or personnel are unrealistic. (10.1)
• It appears that other responsibilities would prevent devotion of sufficient time and attention to this research. (3.0)
• The institutional setting is unfavorable. (2.3)
• Research grants to the investigator, now in force, are adequate in scope and amount to cover the proposed research. (1.5)

More recent statistics largely support the rankings of proposal sections above. Sally Rockey, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at NIH, published a blog that included a discussion of the correlation between the overall Impact score (essentially what determines whether you get funded), and the five other NIH criteria. Scores for the criterion in order of regression weight were Approach (6.7), followed by Significance (Problem) (3.3), Innovation (1.4), Investigator (1.3), and Environment (-0.1). This means the most important sections of the Project Description are the Approach (work plan) followed by the perceived importance of the work (Significance).

The following list is composed of grant proposal “dos” and “don’ts” that are in addition to those above:

• Respond directly to the priorities of the funder and make the connection clear (do not assume the sponsor will change the guidelines just because you have a good idea that falls outside of them).
• Follow the guidelines explicitly both in content and format.
• Positively represent your capabilities, e.g., “We have a strong academic program, but we want to reach more students” vs “We do not have any resources.”
• Present evidence that (a) this issue is significant in the field (based on literature review, statistics, stakeholder opinions, etc.), and (b) your project is likely to succeed (e.g., preliminary data or pilot study).
• Make sure you have described adequate expertise on your team and physical resources to do the work.
• Make sure you have an evaluation plan for project proposals (e.g., measure outcomes in the classroom or in the community).
• Use foundation funds to leverage other funding and at minimum show sustainability of the program.
• Publish results of all funding.
• Write clearly, succinctly; follow an outline; and support your assertions with references or data.
• Try to do too much in light of your experience and skills, the budget, the time allotted, your access to study participants (e.g., subjects), and your resources. Being “too ambitious” is a common rookie mistake, and is reflected in many of the comments above.
• Duplicate other funded projects.
• Resubmit a proposal without revisions in response to reviewer’s comments.
• Submit a large research proposal without a publication history in the area.
• Write a budget that is either too small (skimping) or too large (padding) for the proposal work.

Remember, many of these “don’ts” can be identified by your peer reviewers before you submit. Best wishes! 

Share this:

Discover more from #1 microbiology resource hub.

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

Type your email…

Related Posts

What microbiologists do – where they work!

WHAT IS MICROBIOLOGY?

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition

Language Editing Services

• Translation Services

Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

• 5 minute read
• 114.9K views

Table of Contents

The importance of a well-written research proposal cannot be underestimated. Your research really is only as good as your proposal. A poorly written, or poorly conceived research proposal will doom even an otherwise worthy project. On the other hand, a well-written, high-quality proposal will increase your chances for success.

In this article, we’ll outline the basics of writing an effective scientific research proposal, including the differences between research proposals, grants and cover letters. We’ll also touch on common mistakes made when submitting research proposals, as well as a simple example or template that you can follow.

What is a scientific research proposal?

The main purpose of a scientific research proposal is to convince your audience that your project is worthwhile, and that you have the expertise and wherewithal to complete it. The elements of an effective research proposal mirror those of the research process itself, which we’ll outline below. Essentially, the research proposal should include enough information for the reader to determine if your proposed study is worth pursuing.

It is not an uncommon misunderstanding to think that a research proposal and a cover letter are the same things. However, they are different. The main difference between a research proposal vs cover letter content is distinct. Whereas the research proposal summarizes the proposal for future research, the cover letter connects you to the research, and how you are the right person to complete the proposed research.

There is also sometimes confusion around a research proposal vs grant application. Whereas a research proposal is a statement of intent, related to answering a research question, a grant application is a specific request for funding to complete the research proposed. Of course, there are elements of overlap between the two documents; it’s the purpose of the document that defines one or the other.

Scientific Research Proposal Format

Although there is no one way to write a scientific research proposal, there are specific guidelines. A lot depends on which journal you’re submitting your research proposal to, so you may need to follow their scientific research proposal template.

In general, however, there are fairly universal sections to every scientific research proposal. These include:

• Title: Make sure the title of your proposal is descriptive and concise. Make it catch and informative at the same time, avoiding dry phrases like, “An investigation…” Your title should pique the interest of the reader.
• Abstract: This is a brief (300-500 words) summary that includes the research question, your rationale for the study, and any applicable hypothesis. You should also include a brief description of your methodology, including procedures, samples, instruments, etc.
• Introduction: The opening paragraph of your research proposal is, perhaps, the most important. Here you want to introduce the research problem in a creative way, and demonstrate your understanding of the need for the research. You want the reader to think that your proposed research is current, important and relevant.
• Background: Include a brief history of the topic and link it to a contemporary context to show its relevance for today. Identify key researchers and institutions also looking at the problem
• Literature Review: This is the section that may take the longest amount of time to assemble. Here you want to synthesize prior research, and place your proposed research into the larger picture of what’s been studied in the past. You want to show your reader that your work is original, and adds to the current knowledge.
• Research Design and Methodology: This section should be very clearly and logically written and organized. You are letting your reader know that you know what you are going to do, and how. The reader should feel confident that you have the skills and knowledge needed to get the project done.
• Preliminary Implications: Here you’ll be outlining how you anticipate your research will extend current knowledge in your field. You might also want to discuss how your findings will impact future research needs.
• Conclusion: This section reinforces the significance and importance of your proposed research, and summarizes the entire proposal.
• References/Citations: Of course, you need to include a full and accurate list of any and all sources you used to write your research proposal.

Common Mistakes in Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

Remember, the best research proposal can be rejected if it’s not well written or is ill-conceived. The most common mistakes made include:

• Not providing the proper context for your research question or the problem
• Failing to reference landmark/key studies
• Losing focus of the research question or problem
• Not accurately presenting contributions by other researchers and institutions
• Incompletely developing a persuasive argument for the research that is being proposed
• Misplaced attention on minor points and/or not enough detail on major issues
• Sloppy, low-quality writing without effective logic and flow
• Incorrect or lapses in references and citations, and/or references not in proper format
• The proposal is too long – or too short

Scientific Research Proposal Example

There are countless examples that you can find for successful research proposals. In addition, you can also find examples of unsuccessful research proposals. Search for successful research proposals in your field, and even for your target journal, to get a good idea on what specifically your audience may be looking for.

While there’s no one example that will show you everything you need to know, looking at a few will give you a good idea of what you need to include in your own research proposal. Talk, also, to colleagues in your field, especially if you are a student or a new researcher. We can often learn from the mistakes of others. The more prepared and knowledgeable you are prior to writing your research proposal, the more likely you are to succeed.

One of the top reasons scientific research proposals are rejected is due to poor logic and flow. Check out our Language Editing Services to ensure a great proposal , that’s clear and concise, and properly referenced. Check our video for more information, and get started today.

Research Fraud: Falsification and Fabrication in Research Data

Research Team Structure

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on September 5, 2024.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2024, September 05). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

How to write a research proposal?

Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Devika Rani Duggappa

Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.

INTRODUCTION

A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.

Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review

BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]

CONTENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.

In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.

The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]

Introduction

It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.

Review of literature

It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].

Aims and objectives

The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.

Research design and method

The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]

The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]

Population and sample

Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.

Data collection

The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

Rigor (soundness of the research)

This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.

It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.

Consistency

Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.

Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]

Data analysis

This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]

Ethical considerations

Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.

Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.

Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

How to write a Research Proposal: Components of a research proposal

Components of a research proposal.

• Useful videos
• Common mistakes to avoid
• Sage Research Methods LibGuide This link opens in a new window
• Managing sources
• Request a literature search
• Research proposal - examples
• Creating a Gantt chart
• Free Apps for Research
• Academic writing

Research proposals differ in terms of their presentation depending on what each University department requires. In other words, there is no set template  for a research proposal. Please contact your lecturer regarding the format you are expected to use for your research proposal.Thus, the components of a research proposal include, but are not limited to those mentioned in this guide.

1. The title

Try to come up with a title that is unique and at the same time easy to remember. It should also make a lasting impression to the reader and make them want to come back and read your proposal.  The title must also capture the main concepts of the study . As the research process is lengthy, it is   important that you choose a topic that you are   so curious about  that you remain motivated for the duration of the research process.  Select a topic that you will be able to complete within the time frame that you have for your research. 

3. The background

The background to the topic of your intended research must be clear and precise. It must not only include an in-depth explanation of the key points of your subject but also all the developments in the field as well as their timelines . The researcher must also explain the compelling interest in the research issue as well as the personal interest (if any) in the topic. This section must also indicate the specific area within which the topic falls in your particular field of study or subject . Aslo, how will the proposed study contribute to a particular field? In other words, the impact and the significance in a subject area must be clearly outlined. The target audience must also be clearly described.

5. Objectives of the research

It is important that the objectives are in alignment with the research questions. The objectives must indicate what the aim of the research study is.  In fact, objectives give you a clear indication of the steps that you will take to achieve the aim of the research. The objectives must be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound.

7. Literature review

Collect and present relevant literature on your topic of choice. It is important to include all the main authors or experts in a particular field.  Depending on your field of study or topic, ensure that you include recent literature as well as literature that presents counterarguments to the topic. The justification for the study needs to based on existing literature. Click here for more information on how to write a literature review.

8. Limitations and delimitations of the study

The researcher must indicate the limitations of the study which are what the researcher cannot do or factors that are beyond the researcher's control, as well as delimitations that the researcher chooses not to address for the purposes of the study. Delimitations are boundaries that the researcher has set for the study. The r easons  both for limitations and delimitations must be discussed in this section.

10. Work plan

Your schedule for the research must be stated clearly including the projected timelines for the various stages of your study.

11. Bibliography

All the sources that you have used for your proposal must be listed in alphabetical order using a referencing style that your lecturer has prescribed for your subject field.

Click here for more information on the various reference styles.

2. Introduction to the research

This section of the proposal must provide a broad overview of the topic. The jargon and key terms used in the particular topic must also be thoroughly explained in order to avoid confusion. The interest of the researcher in the particular topic must also be clearly outlined while at the same time mentioning, albeit briefly at this point, a critical review of the main literature that covers the topic.  The researcher must also provide the aim of the research by clearly and concisely stating the problem,  as well as the research questions to be dealt with.  This section must also indicate what the research study will not be covering .

4. The research questions

The research questions must state clearly what your proposed study is meant to address or answer. Ensure that you use simple language that is easy to understand, while being cognisant of the level of  your intended audience . 

6. Research methodology / research methods

This section outlines the approach which the researcher will follow in order to address the research problem and to answer all the research questions from the researcher. The research design must be clearly defined, e.g., is the research  Descriptive, Correlational, Causal-Comparative/Quasi-Experimental, Experimental, Diagnostic or Explanatory.

State clearly

• how the research will be conducted in terms of the theoretical resources that will be used
• the theoretical framework for conducting the research, which is the theoretical approach drawn from your literature review to support your research study
• proposed research method(s)
• a comparison of the advantages, limitations and suitability of the available approaches and methods for conducting your research
• participants, instruments, procedure, analysis, etc.

Research design

Selecting the approach to use

Research approach

Research design and methodology

Importance of research

Attributes of a good research scholar

Summary of different research methodologies

9. Significance of the research

The researcher must provide justification for the need to conduct the study. What is the gap that the study will fill, and what is its contribution to the  existing body of knowledge? The originality and importance of the research which will be  level appropriate, must be clearly described, for instance, the required level of originality for a fourth year research project is different to that of a doctoral candidate. 

The impact of the study for the subject field must be indicated. In other words, how will the research improve the field, who will it impact, how will it make changes in your industy or field etc.? Lastly, the proposed resaerch must be relatable , interesting and engaging .

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Books >>
• Last Updated: Aug 30, 2024 9:03 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unisa.ac.za/research_proposal

• Microbiology
• Journal of General Virology
• Journal of Medical Microbiology
• Microbial Genomics
• International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology
• Access Microbiology, an open research platform
• JMM Case Reports
• Browse our collections
• The Microbiology Society
• Why publish?
• Joining our Editorial Boards
• Article types
• Prepare an article
• Submission and peer review
• Post-acceptance and publication
• Open Access costs
• Publish and Read institutions
• Ethics policies
• Impact and metrics
• Licensing and access options
• Licence agreements
• Manage your subscription
• Publish and Read
• Open Access reporting
• Resources for librarians
• Review with us
• Guidelines for reviewers
• Routes to Open Access
• Publishing Fundamentals
• Microbiology Society

How to prepare an article for submission

Submission checklist, new submissions, article templates  , article structure   title page, data summary, impact statement, introduction, case presentation, figures and tables, conflicts of interest, funding information, ethical approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, author contributions, acknowledgements, nomenclature  , data  .

Articles should be submitted as a single file, preferably readable by Microsoft Word, using a standard typeface such as Times New Roman or Arial. For standard Research Articles, please follow the outline below. Please check our Article types page for information on the various options at each journal, including recommendations over word count and structure.

The Microbiology Society operates a format-free submission policy. This means that authors need only ensure the materials as described in the Submission checklists below are present for a manuscript to be submitted and to begin the peer review process. For reference, guidance on the full article structure is also described below, and Society-specific formatting requests will be made at the revision stage of peer review.

Please find our new author submission checklists here:

• Access Microbiology

New submission checklist

To avoid delays at submission and ensure that your article can be assigned to an Editor as quickly as possible, we ask that you run through the submission checklist below. The International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology also has a pre-submission checklist relating specifically to research articles reporting novel taxa.

• Title page : the first page of the article contains the title, author list with affiliations, the corresponding author’s email address, an abstract, and keywords.
• Line numbers: the article has continuous line numbering throughout, for ease of reviewing.
• Conflicts of interest : if there are no potential conflicts, a sentence stating this. 
• Ethical approval : a statement of approval by an Ethical Committee for human or animal research and consent to participate, if required.
• Sequencing data : all new sequence data generated should be deposited in a public database and accession numbers included. For Microbial Genomics, Access Microbiology and International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology , this data must also be publicly available. For all journals, where any data has been used that was not generated by the authors, those who generated the data should be cited and a link provided to the database in which the information can be accessed. 
• Strains : where a microbial strain has been used, the culture collection accession number or source of the strain is included.
• References : as long as citations are consistent, these can be in any style. The list should include author name(s), journal or book title, article or chapter title (if necessary), year of publication, volume and issue (if appropriate), page numbers and DOIs, where possible.
• Re-using published work : if you are re-using previously published work, you have the permission from the Copyright holder. If you are using unpublished data, you have the explicit consent from the appropriate person and have stated this.
• Data Summary : a description of all supporting data, software or code, including the DOI(s), and/or accession number(s), and the associated URL.
• Funding information : the name of the funding body and the grant number. If no funding was received, a sentence stating this is present.
• Author contributions : full author contributions using the CRediT taxonomy format.
• Consent for publication for Case Reports: a statement in the manuscript that this has been obtained and a signed Consent for Publication form is uploaded. If there are no potential identifiers, a sentence stating this.
• Figures and tables : inclusion of these in the manuscript file, with legends.
• Supplementary Material: if you are providing supplementary information, it is presented as a single PDF or as a combined Excel file, and presented as you wish it to be posted publicly.

Back to top

Revised submission checklist

You should submit your revised article by the date indicated in the revision email, but if you need more time then you should contact the Editorial Office to request a new deadline. To avoid delays at revision, we ask that you run through the New submission checklist described above, respond to requests by the Editorial Office, and provide the following items:

• A clean version of the article: uploaded as a Microsoft Word file with line numbers.
• A version of the article with tracked changes: used to help the Editor and reviewers.
• Response to reviewers : a detailed rebuttal letter, detailing your response to each point raised by the reviewers and Editor, using line numbers to do so.
• Funding information: the name of the funding body and the grant number in the manuscript. If no funding was received, a sentence stating this is present.
• Licence form: a Licence to Publish form for subscription articles, or Creative Commons CC-BY form for Open Access articles, as described in the Copyright and licenses section on our Submission and peer review page (exception: for Access Microbiology , you will be asked for the Creative Commons form at acceptance instead).
• Access Microbiology only: include figures within the main manuscript file, as well as uploading these separately.
• Supplementary Material: if you are providing supplementary information, it is a single PDF file or as a combined Excel file, presented as you wish it to appear at publication.
• Change of authorship : if the order or number of authors has changed from initial submission, we will need the consent of all co-authors. You can provide this either by email, or uploading a Change of Authorship form .

Article templates

If you would prefer to follow a pre-written template to help you structure your article, these can be found below. They are not mandatory. If you use one of our templates, please remember to delete instructional text in italics before you submit. For Research Articles describing new taxa in International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology  please refer to these guidelines rather than the templates below.

• Articles types published in all journals and platform: Research Article , Short Communication , Review , Insight Review , Method , Letter , Personal View , Editorial .
• Access Microbiology only: Case Report , Case Series , Data Note , Pedagogy , Software Article and Study Protocol .
• Microbial Genomics only: BioResource and Outbreak Report .

Article structure

Title page  .

Title: a concise statement of the contents of your article that emphasises the main conclusions.

Author names: first name(s) and family name in full, with the author for correspondence and any authors of equal contribution clearly indicated. The Society does not impose a set form on authors' names, and will honour each individual's preference for how their name appears in their published article, i.e. initials instead of given names. Our journals support ORCiD and CRediT , as described in the ‘Author Statements’ section below.  

Affiliation: the name and address of the institution(s) where the work was done, and current addresses of authors who have since moved.

Corresponding author: the email address for the corresponding author. It is permissible to include the names of more than one author as corresponding author, but a single author must act as the point of communication during the peer review process. Corresponding authors based at a Publish and Read institute must use their institutional email to be eligible for fee-free Open Access.

Keywords: between three and six keywords that will make your article easily searchable.

Repositories : if your article contains new sequence data, please include the accession number(s) on the title page. More information about sequences is in the Data section below.

The abstract should, if possible, introduce the subject in the first sentence and present the main conclusion in the last sentence. References should not be cited, and any abbreviations used must be defined.

For Research Articles, Journal of Medical Microbiology mandates a structured abstract that includes the headings: Introduction, Hypothesis or Gap Statement, Aim, Methodology, Results, and Conclusion.

Microbiology encourages graphical abstracts to be included in all article types. Please provide your graphical abstract as a high-resolution image, preferably in 3:1 aspect ratio and provide a short legend.

Microbial Genomics and   Access Microbiology   have a mandatory Open Data policy and as such ask authors to always include a Data Summary section describing all supporting external data, code or software, including the DOI(s) and/or accession numbers(s), and the associated URL. Please refer to our Open Data page for minimum standards, requirements and recommended repositories

Authors in our other journals are strongly encouraged to provide supporting external data and a Data Summary.

Impact statement

For most article types in Microbial Genomics,  authors should include an Impact statement that explains the significance of your article and how this adds to the literature in the field. An Impact Statement is encouraged for all other journals and the open research platform.

For BioResource articles, authors should include a Significance as a BioResource to the Community section in place of the Impact statement. This lay summary should a) provide a perspective of how the article adds to the literature in the field; b) identify breadth of interest/utility; and c) state the significance of output (incremental or step), in terms of relevance.

For Outbreak Reports, authors should include an Outcome section in place of the Impact statement. This lay summary should a) provide a perspective of how the article adds to the literature in the field; b) identify breadth of interest/utility; and c) state the significance of output (incremental or step), in terms of relevance.

State the objectives and cite any relevant work to set the scene. The Introduction should be succinct and sufficiently detailed to allow readers to interpret the rest of the article.

The Methods section should be comprehensive and provide sufficient detail to allow your work to be replicated. Please consistently cite any software used, including its version and parameters. Authors are encouraged to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) for all plasmids, cell lines, model organisms, antibodies and tools. RRIDs can be found via the RRID portal: scicrunch.org/resources

We recommend you deposit your protocols in protocols.io . You can deposit your protocols with them privately, then add the DOI and link to your article. This will allow the reviewers and Editors to see your protocol during the peer review process. When your article is published the protocol becomes public too, and it will be automatically updated to link to your published article. For Access Microbiology , the protocol should be made public at point of submission.

Indicate the suppliers of chemicals and equipment wherever possible; if these suppliers’ names have changed between your work and submission, please ensure this is clearly indicated. Suppliers’ addresses are not required.

For Case Reports and Case Series in Access Microbiology , in place of the Methods and Results sections. 

This should present all relevant details concerning the case. The case presentation should contain a description of the patient's relevant demographic information (without adding any details that could lead to the identification of the patient); any relevant medical history of the patient; the patient's symptoms and signs; any tests that were carried out and a description of any treatment or intervention. 

We recommend authors follow the CARE guidelines and recommended structure when preparing their Case Report or Case Series.

Please organise your Results section with sufficient subheadings to allow readers to gain a clear understanding of the work. This section should include the outcomes of the experiments, any interpretation of the results and indicate the key questions being addressed. You may include figures and tables in the text to assist Editors and reviewers in assessing the work more easily.

To assess the reproducibility of your work, please include the number of times your experiment was repeated, and the type of result shown (mean, median, representative, etc.) Indicate the variability of the results statistically wherever possible.

Figures and tables should be broadly comprehensible without reference to the text, and add information to the article.

• Figures and tables should not be used to present results that can be described by a brief statement in the text.
• It is not necessary to repeat detailed descriptions of methods in table or figure legends.
• If you have used abbreviations or icons, please define them in the legend.
• Indicate the reproducibility of results.

Figure files

Figures will be required as separate files for publication at revision stage. We support figures supplied in PDF, GIF, TIFF, EPS, JPEG, PNG, and PPT. It is important to ensure that all figures are suitably high resolution for publication, usually no lower than 300 dpi. This means that line thicknesses, symbol sizes, and text should be sufficient to allow for the figure to be scaled down to fit comfortably on an A4 page. All article PDFs are displayed with a single column and figure files may occupy the full complete column width.

Permissions

If you wish to use previously published figures or tables or unpublished data, it is your responsibility to obtain permission from the original copyright holder or data producer prior to submission. We accept emails, letters and Rightslink confirmation, which must be from the copyright holder. Any citations of personal communications or unpublished results must be confirmed in a cover letter.

Briefly compare your results with previous findings without revisiting your results in full. If necessary, list the main conclusions at the end.

If appropriate, the Results and Discussion section may be combined.

You must declare any potential conflicts of interest in the article. If no conflict exists, include the line "The author(s) declare that there are no conflicts of interest " under the Conflicts of interest heading.

Examples of potential financial conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Receipt of funding or salary from an organisation that might gain or lose financially from publication of your article.
• If you hold stocks or shares in such an organisation.
• If you hold or are applying for a patent relating to the content of this article.

Examples of non-financial conflicts of interest might include political, religious or intellectual conflicts.

Describe in detail the funding sources that supported this work, including the names of funding bodies and grant numbers. Any authors who are associated with specific funding sources should be named. You must also state whether anyone employed by the funders, other than the authors, played any role in the study or in the preparation of the article or decision to publish; these persons need to be named and their role described. If you did not receive funding for the work, include the line "This work received no specific grant from any funding agency" under the Funding information heading.

Any experimental work with humans or animals must include a statement that the Ethical Committee of the institution in which the work was done has approved the work, including the name of the ethics committee and reference number where appropriate. For human work we also require a statement regarding informed consent to participate in the study. 

We will not accept articles in which the ethical aspects are open to doubt, and encourage all authors to consult the relevant EQUATOR guidelines for reporting experiments involving humans or animals.

Consent to publish is required where personal details of an individual that may lead to their identification have been included in the article. Details include direct identifiers such as names, images and videos; or indirect identifiers that when used together may reveal the individual’s identity (e.g., gender, age, location of treatment, rare disease, socioeconomic data).

You will need to upload evidence of written consent for the publication of these details to the peer review system and you must include a sentence stating that this consent was obtained in the manuscript. For articles describing individuals under the age of 18, consent for publication must be obtained from their parent or legal guardian. If the person has died, consent must be obtained from their next of kin. You can use our Consent for Publication form to obtain consent for publication, or a consent form from your own institution or region if appropriate.

Patient or next of kin consent is required for all case reports submitted to Access Microbiology.  

We encourage authors to consult the CARE guidelines when preparing Case Reports.

Required for Access Microbiology and encouraged for all other journals, authors should include a section on authorship and contributions using the CRediT taxonomy , which aims to provide transparency to the contributions of researchers to published work, improving attribution, credit, and accountability. 

We encourage all authors to sign up for ORCiD , the persistent identifier for research contributors. ORCID provides a persistent identifier – an ORCID iD – that distinguishes you from other researchers and a mechanism for linking your research outputs and activities to your iD. Learn more at orcid.org

An Acknowledgements section is not compulsory. However, if materials and results were obtained from outside the authors’ laboratories (e.g. production of antibodies, properties of strains), this must be acknowledged.

If the article includes a group author in the author list, the individuals within this group should be listed here.

If you wish to acknowledge an individual, please make sure that the person consents to be named in your article.

If you have used a language editing service when preparing or revising your manuscript, please include this within your acknowledgement section. This statement should indicate the type of editing undertaken and the name of the service used.

The house reference style is Vancouver. If your article is accepted for publication, your reference lists and citations will be reformatted to fit Vancouver style. Ideally, references should include a DOI to facilitate this, and to allow us to create reference links in published articles. Where websites are listed, a date when this was accessed should be provided.

Nomenclature

Nomenclature of micro-organisms

You must use the correct name of all organisms referenced in your article, conforming with international rules of nomenclature:

• Prokaryotes: International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes .
• Viruses: International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature .
• Algae and fungi: International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants .
• Protozoa: International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .
• Yeasts: The Yeasts, a taxonomic study, 5th edition . Edited by C Kurtzman, JW Fell & T Boekhout. 2011, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Generic names are singular Latin nouns and do not take a plural form. You should avoid the use of a generic name alone when the reference is to the members of the genus. Thus, ‘The strains (species or cultures) of Salmonella are…’ not ‘The Salmonella are…’. 

Many microorganisms are known by their vernacular (common) names as well as by their scientific names. There are no rules governing the use of vernacular names and it is often convenient to use them; you should feel free to do so, provided you have correctly identified the microorganism the first time it is mentioned in your article. You may also add synonyms or vernacular names in parentheses when the name is first mentioned, if you wish to do so.

Chemical and biochemical nomenclature

Follow the recommendations of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) for chemical nomenclature, and those of the Nomenclature Committee of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (IUBMB) and the IUPAC–IUBMB Joint Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature for biochemical nomenclature . Similarly, follow the IUBMB system for enzyme nomenclature .

Genetic nomenclature

Take care to distinguish between genes (e.g. gag ) and the proteins that they encode (e.g. Gag).

Insertion sequences should be named as given in the ISfinder Database .

Abbreviations of scientific names

Although names of genera and higher categories may stand alone to refer to the taxa with which they are associated, specific and subspecific epithets may not. A generic name followed by a specific epithet should be spelled out the first time it is used in the text; subsequently, it may be abbreviated to its capitalised initial letter if the context makes the meaning clear. In lists of names of species of the same genus, the genus name may be abbreviated after its first use for subsequent species in the list. If there are several generic names in the text with the same initial letter, the names should be spelled out at each occurrence.

Patent strains

If the strains under study are involved in a patent process, please make sure this is clearly indicated both in the article and in your submission cover letter. Strains other than the type strain should carry the superscript ‘PP’ if a patent is pending and ‘P’ if a patent has been issued.

Please use SI units throughout your article where possible.

Full guidance for the handling, deposition and submission of supplementary and supporting data (including sequencing) can be found on our Open Data page.

Microbial Genomics  and  Access Microbiology  

Microbial Genomics and Access Microbiology   have mandatory Open Data policies. The full guidance on what this means, and how authors can ensure compliance, can be found on our Open Data page.

Articles reporting new sequence data must have deposited the data in one of the recommended repositories (GenBank, EMBL, DDBJ or PIR) and include an accession number. Data must be publicly available by acceptance. For more information on the minimum requirements and databases for various sequencing types,  see the Minimum data requirements section on the Open Data page.

We encourage you to deposit important strains in a recognised culture collection and to refer to the collection and strain number in the article, in line with the requirements of the Bacteriological Code : “In the case of description of new species and subspecies the culture collection number of at least two publicly accessible service collections in different countries where a subculture of the type strain has been deposited must be given” – Rule 27(3).

If you are using a strain which has been obtained from someone else, you must provide us with confirmation that you had permission to make use of the strain in the research you are reporting in the article.

For the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology , you must provide evidence that types are deposited in two recognised culture collections in two different countries without restrictions. If there are any Material Transfer Agreements associated with the certificates of deposit, please include this information during submission. 

Mathematical models

If your article includes a mathematical model, you should provide appropriate details at submission so the reviewers and Editor can assess the work. If your article is accepted for publication you can choose to make your model publicly available through a data repository or as a supplementary data file.

Clinical trials

We follow the ICMJE guideline for clinical trials registration in line with the ICMJE and WHO declarations. For submission of a randomised controlled trial, please provide the registration number of the trial and the name of the trial registry in the last line of the paper’s structured abstract. Articles that report clinical trial data should contain a data sharing statement, indicating:

• Whether you intend to share individual de-identified participant data.
• The details of the data you intend to share.
• Which study-related documents will be made available.
• When and how the data will be accessible.

Clinical trials that begin enrolling participants on or after 1 January 2019 must include a data sharing plan in the trial’s registration if they wish to publish results. Any changes to the plan after registration must be disclosed in the data sharing statement when published.

Back to top  

BIOL 356: Microbiology: Literature Review

• Getting Started
• Literature Review
• Key Resources
• Organizing Research
• LibKey Nomad

Books about Literature Reviews

Related Guides

• Writing a Literature Review by Conrad Woxland Last Updated Jun 17, 2024 136 views this year
• Lit Review Guide--University of Pittsburgh

What is a Literature Review?

• A literature review is a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the principal research about the topic being studied.
• The review helps form the intellectual framework for the study.
• The review need not be exhaustive; the objective is not to list as many relevant books, articles, reports as possible.
• However, the review should contain the most pertinent studies and point to important past and current research and practices in the field.

Purpose of a Literature Review

A literature review serves several purposes. For example, it

• provides thorough knowledge of previous studies; introduces seminal works.
• helps focus one’s own research topic.
• identifies a conceptual framework for one’s own research questions or problems; indicates potential directions for future research.
• suggests previously unused or underused methodologies, designs, quantitative and qualitative strategies.
• identifies gaps in previous studies; identifies flawed methodologies and/or theoretical approaches; avoids replication of mistakes.
• helps the researcher avoid repetition of earlier research.
• suggests unexplored populations.
• determines whether past studies agree or disagree; identifies controversy in the literature.
• tests assumptions; may help counter preconceived ideas and remove unconscious bias.

What is "the literature"?

You'll often hear "explore the literature" or "what does the literature say?"  So, what is "the literature?"

Most simply put, "the literature" is a collection of scholarly writings on a topic. This includes:

• peer-reviewed journal articles
• conference proceedings
• dissertations

How do you know when you are done researching?

Are you seeing the same articles over and over?

• << Previous: Getting Started
• Next: Key Resources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 1:17 PM
• URL: https://libguides.stthomas.edu/microbiology

© 2023 University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

• Privacy Policy

Home » How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write a Research Proposal

Writing a Research proposal involves several steps to ensure a well-structured and comprehensive document. Here is an explanation of each step:

1. Title and Abstract

• Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research.
• Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal.

2. Introduction:

• Provide an introduction to your research topic, highlighting its significance and relevance.
• Clearly state the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Discuss the background and context of the study, including previous research in the field.

3. Research Objectives

• Outline the specific objectives or aims of your research. These objectives should be clear, achievable, and aligned with the research problem.

4. Literature Review:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings, identify gaps, and highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

5. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to employ to address your research objectives.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques you will use.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate and suitable for your research.

6. Timeline:

• Create a timeline or schedule that outlines the major milestones and activities of your research project.
• Break down the research process into smaller tasks and estimate the time required for each task.

7. Resources:

• Identify the resources needed for your research, such as access to specific databases, equipment, or funding.
• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources to carry out your research effectively.

8. Ethical Considerations:

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise during your research and explain how you plan to address them.
• If your research involves human subjects, explain how you will ensure their informed consent and privacy.

9. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

• Clearly state the expected outcomes or results of your research.
• Highlight the potential impact and significance of your research in advancing knowledge or addressing practical issues.

10. References:

• Provide a list of all the references cited in your proposal, following a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

11. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as survey questionnaires, interview guides, or data analysis plans.

Research Proposal Format

The format of a research proposal may vary depending on the specific requirements of the institution or funding agency. However, the following is a commonly used format for a research proposal:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your research proposal, your name, your affiliation or institution, and the date.

2. Abstract:

• Provide a brief summary of your research proposal, highlighting the research problem, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.

3. Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic and provide background information.
• State the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Explain the significance and relevance of the research.
• Review relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings and identify gaps in the existing knowledge.
• Explain how your research will contribute to filling those gaps.

5. Research Objectives:

• Clearly state the specific objectives or aims of your research.
• Ensure that the objectives are clear, focused, and aligned with the research problem.

6. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to use.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate for your research.

7. Timeline:

8. Resources:

• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources effectively.

9. Ethical Considerations:

• If applicable, explain how you will ensure informed consent and protect the privacy of research participants.

10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

11. References:

12. Appendices:

Research Proposal Template

Here’s a template for a research proposal:

1. Introduction:

2. Literature Review:

3. Research Objectives:

4. Methodology:

5. Timeline:

6. Resources:

7. Ethical Considerations:

8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

9. References:

10. Appendices:

Research Proposal Sample

Title: The Impact of Online Education on Student Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study

1. Introduction

Online education has gained significant prominence in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes by comparing them with traditional face-to-face instruction. The study will explore various aspects of online education, such as instructional methods, student engagement, and academic performance, to provide insights into the effectiveness of online learning.

2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research are as follows:

• To compare student learning outcomes between online and traditional face-to-face education.
• To examine the factors influencing student engagement in online learning environments.
• To assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods employed in online education.
• To identify challenges and opportunities associated with online education and suggest recommendations for improvement.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Design

This research will utilize a mixed-methods approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The study will include the following components:

3.2 Participants

The research will involve undergraduate students from two universities, one offering online education and the other providing face-to-face instruction. A total of 500 students (250 from each university) will be selected randomly to participate in the study.

3.3 Data Collection

The research will employ the following data collection methods:

• Quantitative: Pre- and post-assessments will be conducted to measure students’ learning outcomes. Data on student demographics and academic performance will also be collected from university records.
• Qualitative: Focus group discussions and individual interviews will be conducted with students to gather their perceptions and experiences regarding online education.

3.4 Data Analysis

Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, and regression analysis. Qualitative data will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and themes.

4. Ethical Considerations

The study will adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent will be obtained, and participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

5. Significance and Expected Outcomes

This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of online education on student learning outcomes. The findings will help educational institutions and policymakers make informed decisions about incorporating online learning methods and improving the quality of online education. Moreover, the study will identify potential challenges and opportunities related to online education and offer recommendations for enhancing student engagement and overall learning outcomes.

6. Timeline

The proposed research will be conducted over a period of 12 months, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.

The estimated budget for this research includes expenses related to data collection, software licenses, participant compensation, and research assistance. A detailed budget breakdown will be provided in the final research plan.

8. Conclusion

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes through a comparative study with traditional face-to-face instruction. By exploring various dimensions of online education, this research will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and challenges associated with online learning. The findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on educational practices and help shape future strategies for maximizing student learning outcomes in online education settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Research Proposal – Types, Template and Example

How To Write A Grant Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

Custom Essay, Term Paper & Research paper writing services

• testimonials

Toll Free: +1 (888) 354-4744

Email: [email protected]

Writing custom essays & research papers since 2008

100+ microbiology research topics to succeed.

Microbiology topics are some of the most researched ideas. This field entails the study of different microorganisms, ranging from eukaryotic fungi and single-celled organisms to cell-cluster organisms. When pursuing a microbiology course in a university or college, your educators will ask you to write academic papers on microbiology research topics.

Choosing the right microbiology topics to write about is essential because it determines the direction of your research and writing processes. Therefore, take your time to identify a topic you will be comfortable working with from the beginning to the end.

Top Microbiology Topics for Research

If looking for the top microbiology research paper topics, this list has some of the best ideas to explore. That’s because most people are searching for information related to these topics in microbiology.

• Bioterrorism- Bioweapons limit with technological developments
• Antibiotics resistance- A major limitation in medicine
• Extraterrestrial life- Existing life evidence in space
• Gene therapy- Gene therapy as a controversial biology topic
• Cloning- Latest developments in cloning research
• Antibacterial products-Latest discoveries explaining the possibility of antibacterial products effects on the immune system
• What is the future of microbiology research, both theoretically and technologically?
• Epidemics- Current disease control protocols and possible solutions
• Vaccines- Recent research about the effectiveness of vaccines like flue
• Food preservation methods- How technology enhances safe food preservation and consumption

These are brilliant microbiology project topics. However, you need time and effort to research any of these topics and come up with an awesome paper.

Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology

Maybe you want to research and write about current topics in microbiology and immunology. That means you’re looking for topics that will enable you to explore recent information in this area. In that case, consider these microbiology topics in the news.

• Virus-like particle vaccines for protozoan parasites and respiratory viruses
• Quorum sensing and campylobacter biofilm formation in molecular mechanisms
• Campylobacter horizontal gene and natural competence transfer
• Murine investigation models for innate immune response and colonization resistance in campylobacter jejuni infections
• iBALT role in respiratory immunity
• Antiviral immunity for pyroptosis
• Damage to the sensing tissue by Myeloid c-Type Lectin receptors
• How antifungal drugs modify the cell wall
• Host cell’s death pathways manipulation by the Herpes Simplex virus
• Type II Secretion system structures in needle filaments
• RIP Kinase signaling outcomes during neuro-invasive infection by virus
• Innate immune system pathological and physiological functions of CARD 9 signaling
• The genetics of the Lassa virus
• Genital immunity’s memory lymphocyte- Tissue-resident memory T cells’ role
• Delivery and formulation technologies for the mRNA vaccines
• Peptide and protein nanocluster vaccines
• Reovirus’ cell killing- Consequences and mechanisms
• Leptospirosis reference lab’s role
• Hypoxia-inducible and hypoxia factors in stem cell maintenance among cancer patients
• Development of dengue vaccine

Pick any of these new research topics in microbiology if your goal is to work on recent information. Nevertheless, take your time reading recent literature in this field to come up with an awesome paper.

Interesting Topics in Microbiology

Perhaps, you’re looking for microbiology projects topics that most people will find interesting to read about. In that case, consider these interesting microbiology topics.

• Techniques and methodologies for future research about the virus
• Redox-active metabolite’s roles in microbial signaling
• The role and emergence of yeast as a baking industry’s preservative
• Host-pathogenic interactions study with a focus on redox and cellular metals
• Yeast non-conventional use in the wine-making industry
• Microbiota- What is the bifidobacterila’s role in the human gut?
• Virus role in vaccines development and improvement in third world countries
• Heath- Microbiology role in addressing antibiotic resistance
• Human microbial ecosystems study- Microbe interactions
• Impact and role of viruses in large animals’ health
• How bacteria in complex organisms respond to stress
• Cell to cell interaction and social behavior in bacteria interactions
• Norovirus cross-contamination investigation during service procedures in the food industry in fresh produce preparation
• Transfer rate determination in Salmonella sp. From nut butter to food materials
• Listeria monacytogenes comparative genomic analysis for survival within a food processing situation
• Thermal resistance and survival of desiccated Salmonella in dry and moist food processing environments
• Effective cleaning products for removing food matrix with B. Thuringiensis spores and B. Cereus
• Analysis of cleaning procedures’ effects on Bacillus spores
• How temperature affects viruses survival in vegetables and fruits
• How temperature and time combine to stimulate C. botulinum spores to germinate or produce a toxin

This category has some of the most interesting and easy microbiology research topics. However, take your time to research the topic you choose to write a paper that will impress your educator to award you the top grade.

Medical Microbiology Research Topics

Maybe you want to explore microbiology and human health topics. In that case, consider these medical-related microbiology paper topics.

• Probiotics- A study of their preparation
• How to prevent sickle cell anemia
• The growth of mold
• How fertilizes, polythene and manure affect the hypocotyl’s elongation rate
• How cinnamon and curry inhibit the growth of bacteria
• How oil spills affect microorganisms in the oceans
• Reproducing yeast in sugar substitutes
• Why vitamin c affects the rotting rate for fruits
• Effective toothbrush disinfecting methods
• Describe the spread of Ebola

Consider any of these microbiology research topics research paper if interested in something to do with medicine. However, take your time to identify good and authentic information sources before you start writing your paper. That’s because your educator will be interested in unique and relevant content.

Microbiology Research Topics for Undergraduates

Are you pursuing undergraduate studies in microbiology? If yes, you will find these microbiology research topics for college students interesting.

• Using polymerase chain reaction to diagnose infectious diseases
• Preliminary antimicrobial and phytochemical screening of coat and seed of citrus sinensis
• Microbiology effect on mining
• Human skin colonization by bacteria
• Sweet orange’s antibacterial activity on Escherichia coli and staphylococcus aureus isolated from wound infection
• The susceptibility pattern of bacteria to antibiotics
• Bush pear analysis and the oil project
• Spoilt avocado microbial examination- What it reveals
• Characterization and isolation of microorganisms from a stored pap
• CryoEM use in understanding pathogen resistance and transport
• Additive manufacture of skin-facing antimicrobial devices for surgery
• Oral bacteria’s role in cardiovascular disease
• Nutrient-mediated ‘Dual warhead’ antimicrobials’ delivery
• Induction mechanisms of the protective lung tissue memory cells in influenza
• The activity of eukaryotic, elucidating topoisomerase in homologous recombination
• Oral bacteria involvement in chronic periodontitis- Metabolomics investigation
• Effect of metal nanoparticles on the multi-species biofilm consortia- A metabolomics investigation
• How vaping or smoking affects the risk of CoV-2, SARS, and COVID-19 outcomes
• Soil contaminants risks on below and above ground eco-systems in urban areas
• Protective microbes- How to rebuild microbiota when treating AMR infection

This category also has some of the best microbiology topics for presentation. However, get ready to research any of these topics to write an impressive paper.

Hot Topics in Microbiology

Perhaps, you’re looking for the most interesting microbiology essay topics to research and write about. In that case, consider some of the ideas in this category.

• Shea butter’s microbiological analysis
• Research of tapeworms and their dangers
• Influenza spread in the world and its impact on the war
• Restriction-modification cellular microbiology
• Applied microbiology- Biofuels generation using microorganisms
• Microscope invention and its effect on microbiology knowledge
• Microbiology role in food industries and pharmaceutical
• How microbiology has helped in preventing life-threatening illnesses
• Bacterial polymer- A study of cyanophycin
• A study of the functionalities and properties of wetland bacteria
• Microbiological study of a commercial preparation of yogurts
• A study of bacteria that withstand antibiotics
• Human immunodeficiency virus diagnosis- How it’s done
• A study of plasmodium species correlation
• A study of onions’ microorganisms
• An investigation of starch fermentation, specificities, and activities of its enzymes
• Listeria growth and survival in freshly cut vegetables
• Low moisture food inoculation protocols
• Survival and growth of Salmonella during partially sprouted products processing and chia powders
• Environmental organisms’ risk assessment and the importance of better control and knowledge

This category also has some of the best food microbiology topics. Nevertheless, students should be ready to spend time and effort researching any of these ideas before writing. That’s because educators expect them to present fresh and relevant information in their papers.

Learners have many topics or ideas to consider when researching and writing academic papers. However, every student should look for an interesting topic they are comfortable researching and writing about. That’s because writing a research paper or essay takes time. Choosing a boring topic means a learner will spend their time working on something they’re not interested in. And this can reflect on the quality of their paper. Thus, their grade will suffer.

Search suggestions update instantly to match the search query.

How to write a research proposal that stands out

Stand out from the competition

Take the next steps towards your PhD

Writing your research proposal

When you apply for a research degree at the University of Portsmouth, you may have to submit a research proposal that outlines, among many other things, the nature of your research, and why it's important. 

To help make yours as compelling as possible, read our helpful hints for creating a clear, concise and engaging research proposal.

Prospective supervisors will not be expecting you to have all the answers at this stage; if accepted onto a research degree, your ideas will develop throughout the course of your studies.

What should a research proposal contain?

Title and abstract.

• Your title should be clear and easy-to-understand.
• The abstract is a concise and engaging summary of your research question and approach (around 300 words). It should be written as a standalone piece so that any prospective supervisor can understand what you plan to do, and why, from the abstract alone.

Introduction, background and rationale

• This section should provide a background to your research - what you want to investigate and why the research is important/needed.

Research aims, questions or hypothesis

• You should clearly communicate the research question(s) you would seek to answer in your intended research proposal. Depending on your chosen subject area you may also wish to specify some aims, objectives and hypotheses. If you are not sure whether this is necessary, discuss this with your potential supervisor.

Literature review

• In this section you will need to demonstrate your understanding of the key literature that relates to your research question(s), and outline your critical understanding of what previous research has found. You may also have identified any gaps in the current knowledge related to your area of research, and you can highlight these here.

Methodology

• A rationale and description of the approach you would intend to take to answer your research question(s). You should discuss the general approach you would take to answering your research question(s) e.g. in a Social Science PhD, whether you’d take a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approach, as well as considering the more specific issues e.g. would you use interviews or focus groups.
• Clearly outline any separate studies you expect to conduct and how they link or relate to each other. As a rule of thumb, most Science, Social Science and Engineering PhDs research proposals would be expected to contain 3-4 separate studies, each approximately equivalent to a Masters thesis project in size.
• What ethical considerations do you anticipate within your research, and how might you approach these?

Dissemination and impact

• Sharing the findings of your research is a fundamental part of being a researcher, and prospective supervisors will be interested to know how you anticipate disseminating your research findings.
• A research degree can take between 3-6 years to complete, so a timeline of the key stages of your research should be included.

Referencing

• Don't forget to include your references  

How long should my research proposal be? 

Most proposals are between 1,500-4,000 words, but the exact length will vary depending on which research area you're applying to join. 

Your potential supervisor can let you know any specific requirements for the area you’re applying to.

You are strongly encouraged to work with your potential supervisor to refine your proposal before you make a formal application. This way, you can make sure the project is a good fit with their interests and expertise.

Do your homework - make sure your problem hasn't already been solved.

Engage the reader - you don't want the reader to switch off!

Be realistic - especially about timescales and accessing data

Take your time - it's important not to rush writing your research proposal 

Seek feedback - it's always a good idea to get others to read your research proposal

Prepare to be flexible, your project can evolve or change

Important do’s and don’ts

• Write your research proposal in your own words.
• Acknowledge any sources you used for information or ideas presented in your research proposal.
• Make sure the research proposal you are about to submit looks fantastic - f irst impressions count!

Don’t: 

• Copy and paste text directly from sources such as journal articles without acknowledging them in the text. Some universities use plagiarism checking software on the research proposals submitted to them.
• Use AI or similar tools to produce your finished proposal.

My PhD supervisor supported my career ambitions and has been crucial in getting me where I am today.

Robert Lawerence, PhD Molecular Microbiology

Postgraduate Research Proposal Guide

Learn more about research proposals and the process involved in creating the perfect application. 

Follow our step by step guide

Contact Postgraduate Admissions

Speak to one of our friendly team and ask us anything about your postgraduate study options.

Get in touch

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• FEMS Microbiology Ecology
• FEMS Microbiology Letters
• FEMS Microbiology Reviews
• FEMS Yeast Research
• Pathogens and Disease
• FEMS Microbes
• Awards & Prizes
• Editor's Choice Articles
• Thematic Issues
• Virtual Special Issues
• Call for Papers
• Journal Policies
• Open Access Options
• Submit to the FEMS Journals
• Why Publish with the FEMS Journals
• About the Federation of European Microbiological Societies
• About the FEMS Journals
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Conference Reports
• Editorial Boards
• Investing in Science
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Six Key Topics in Microbiology: 2024

This collection from the FEMS journals presents the latest high-quality research in six key topic areas of microbiology that have an impact across the world. All of the FEMS journals aim to serve the microbiology community with timely and authoritative research and reviews, and by investing back into the science community . 

Interested in publishing your research relevant to the six key microbiology topics?

Learn more about why the FEMS journals are the perfect home for your microbiology research.  

Browse the collection categories: 

Antimicrobial resistance, environmental microbiology, pathogenicity and virulence, biotechnology and synthetic biology, microbiomes, food microbiology.

FEMS and Open Access: Embracing an Open Future

As of January 2024, FEMS has flipped four of its journals to fully open access (OA), making six out of its seven journals OA. FEMS Microbiology Letters remains a subscription journal and free to publish in. 

We are excited to be making high quality science freely available to anyone to read anywhere in the world and further supporting the advancement of our discipline. 

View our FAQs page

Never miss the latest research from the FEMS Journals

Stay up to date on the latest microbiology research with content alerts delivered directly to your inbox. This free service  from OUP allows you to create custom email alerts to make sure you never miss our on the latest research from your favorite FEMS journals. 

Learn more & sign up

Affiliations

• Copyright © 2024
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

We have 11 Microbiology (research proposal form) PhD Projects, Programmes & Scholarships

Biological Sciences

All locations

Institution

All Institutions

All PhD Types

All Funding

Microbiology (research proposal form) PhD Projects, Programmes & Scholarships

Msc by research: speeding up the plant microbiota: investigating the impact of speed breeding on host-microbe interactions in the barley rhizosphere, phd research project.

PhD Research Projects are advertised opportunities to examine a pre-defined topic or answer a stated research question. Some projects may also provide scope for you to propose your own ideas and approaches.

Self-Funded PhD Students Only

This project does not have funding attached. You will need to have your own means of paying fees and living costs and / or seek separate funding from student finance, charities or trusts.

MSc By Research: Resistance isn’t futile: Uncovering novel mechanisms of fungal drug resistance

Litac – bio-based fibres of bacteria-generated bioplastics for a decarbonised textile industry, funded phd project (uk students only).

This research project has funding attached. It is only available to UK citizens or those who have been resident in the UK for a period of 3 years or more. Some projects, which are funded by charities or by the universities themselves may have more stringent restrictions.

MSc By Research: Research project Exploiting fungal cell wall remodelling mechanisms to combat antifungal drug tolerance

Msc by research: bacillus subtilis biofilm formation and environmental stress, msc by research: effect of intermicrobial interactions on swarming in pathogenic pseudomonas aeruginosa, msc by research: bacillus subtilis intraspecies interactions, msc by research: mapping the host response to fungal pathogens, investigating proinflammatory and toxicological properties of nano-microparticles (nmp) from different sources of plastic waste and environmental pollution, genome mining of novel antimicrobial natural products, discovery of novel pharmaceuticals from marine and desert microorganisms.

FindAPhD. Copyright 2005-2024 All rights reserved.

Unknown    ( change )

Have you got time to answer some quick questions about PhD study?

Select your nearest city

You haven’t completed your profile yet. To get the most out of FindAPhD, finish your profile and receive these benefits:

• Monthly chance to win one of ten £10 Amazon vouchers ; winners will be notified every month.*
• The latest PhD projects delivered straight to your inbox
• Access to our £6,000 scholarship competition
• Weekly newsletter with funding opportunities, research proposal tips and much more
• Early access to our physical and virtual postgraduate study fairs

Or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

or begin browsing FindAPhD.com

*Offer only available for the duration of your active subscription, and subject to change. You MUST claim your prize within 72 hours, if not we will redraw.

Create your account

Looking to list your PhD opportunities? Log in here .

Filtering Results