The NRF research proposal is a different genre from a journal article. Reviewers assess not only the scholarly contribution of the research but also the value of the national R&D investment. This skill helps you describe your research persuasively while following the language of NRF review criteria and the section structure.
⚠️ First — the official call for proposals is the final authority
NRF frequently reorganizes program structures and names (e.g., the individual basic research system was reorganized into Leader Research/Young Researcher/Sejong Science Fellowship/Core Research, etc.). The project type names, section structure, review criteria, and character counts written in this skill are general reference defaultsand may differ from the **official call for proposals (posted on IRIS)** for the relevant year and program. Before starting, confirm with the user which program and year it is, and if possible obtain and follow the actual section items, review criteria, and length limits from that call for proposals. Do not let the skill's default structure take precedence over the call for proposals.
Information to identify before starting
Confirm the following before starting (do not ask again if already provided in the conversation):
- Project type — Confirm the exact current program name with the user (since NRF reorganizes names, the skill does not assert the type name). Example categories: individual basic (Leader/Young/Core, etc.), group research (Leading Research Center ERC/SRC/MRC), talent development (BK21) — but BK21 is an education and talent development program, not a research proposal, so it differs from the basic research section structure below
- Research topic — Core keywords and research subject (e.g., IPMC-based soft actuator)
- Purpose of writing — New proposal draft / review of an existing draft / writing only a specific section
- Character limit — Limits differ by section for IRIS submission (if not provided, write based on 2,000 characters)
NRF research proposal section structure
Although the detailed items differ by project type, most NRF basic research proposals follow the structure below:
1. Purpose and necessity of the research
Purpose of this section: to make reviewers accept "why this research must be done now, by this researcher."
Components:
- Research background: the current state and limitations of the field (what existing research has not solved)
- Research necessity: why it must be done now (timeliness, social and industrial demand)
- Research objectives: the specific objectives to be achieved through this research
Using the language of review criteria: "This research overcomes the limitations of ~", "through securing the source technology of ~", "compared with domestic and international research trends"
2. Research content and methods
Purpose of this section: To make reviewers judge it as a "feasible and systematic research plan."
Components:
- Research content: What is being studied (research subject, variables, level of analysis)
- Research methods: How it is studied (experimental design, analysis methods, verification methods)
- Research implementation system: Phased plan (Year 1/Year 2/Year 3)
Including specific figures and preliminary data improves credibility: "confirmed ~% strain in preliminary experiments," "target of ~fold improvement over existing methods"
3. Research implementation schedule
Gantt chart format or year-by-year milestone table. Minimum elements:
- Year-by-year goals (Year 1: establish ○○, Year 2: optimize ○○, Year 3: demonstrate ○○)
- Key outputs (X SCI papers, X patents, X academic presentations)
4. Utilization plan and expected effects of research outcomes
Purpose of this section: To convince reviewers that it "has value for national R&D investment."
Components:
- Academic contribution: Target for SCI paper publication, academic significance
- Technological utilization: Industrialization potential, technology transfer potential, linkage to follow-up research
- Socioeconomic impact: Market size, competitiveness of related industries, solving social problems
Write the impact specifically without exaggeration. However, never fabricate figures such as market size or growth rates. Such statistics should be used only when a source is available (name and year of market research report, government statistics, etc.); if not, leave them as a placeholder explicitly stating to the user, "Verify the source for this figure and fill it in" — e.g., [시장 규모: 출처 확인 필요]. Arbitrarily generating plausible "X trillion won" numbers backfires in review and violates research ethics. Even without quantitative figures, qualitative impact such as "expansion into application fields such as underwater robots and rehabilitation medical devices" can be sufficiently described.
Self-check checklist based on review criteria
After writing, self-check based on the following items:
Excellence (innovation·originality)
- Is the differentiation from existing research clearly described?
- Is evidence provided for claims such as "first," "original," "source technology," etc.?
- Are the latest domestic and international research trends accurately reflected?
Necessity (timeliness·importance)
- Is it explained why this research must be done now?
- Is social and industrial demand supported by specific figures or cases?
- Is the connection to strengthening domestic research competitiveness specified?
Feasibility
- Is the research method a specific and verified approach?
- Are the researcher's expertise and preliminary results included?
- Is the schedule realistic?
Utilization plan
- Are both academic contributions (papers) and practical contributions (technology, industry) included?
- Is the ripple effect described concretely without exaggeration?
Korean academic style guide
Expressions used in NRF proposals and expressions to avoid:
Recommended expressions
- "aims to elucidate ~" (not "will reveal")
- "through interpretation of the mechanism of ~" (not "by finding out why it is so")
- "the originality of this study lies in ~" (specify distinctiveness)
- "through preliminary research, the possibility of ~ was confirmed" (provide evidence)
- "when compared with prior research at home and abroad" (provide comparative context)
- "is expected to contribute to securing the source technology of ~"
Expressions to avoid
- Excessive abuse of the passive voice ("~ will be carried out" → "~ is achieved")
- Vague expected effects ("contributes to social development" → specify the concrete field and manner)
- Long-winded sentences without a subject
- Excessive use of English (technical terms may be given in parentheses)
Special considerations by project type
Support program for new researchers
- Emphasize the individual researcher's independent research capability
- It is important to specify distinctiveness from the research of one's advisor and senior colleagues
- Including a future research vision is recommended
Support program for mid-career researchers
- Linkage with a long-term research roadmap
- Possibility of international collaboration and formation of a research group
Leading Research Center (ERC/MRC/SRC)
- Describe the capabilities of the entire research group, not a single PI
- Emphasize the convergence research aspect
- A manpower training plan is mandatory
BK21
- Focus on graduate student education outcomes
- Include employment and career support programs
Output format
When drafting a section:
## [섹션명]
(글자 수: X자 / 제한: Y자)
[본문]
---
💡 심사기준 점검:
- 우수성: [충족/보완 필요] — [이유]
- 필요성: [충족/보완 필요] — [이유]
- 실현가능성: [충족/보완 필요] — [이유]
When reviewing the entire proposal, present a checklist for each section along with the top 3 priority items for improvement.