What This Does
Review research grant applications (KAKENHI, JST programs, and other competitive funding) based on review criteria and provide specific improvement suggestions. Identify weaknesses from the reviewer's perspective and present revisions to increase the adoption rate.
Required Inputs
- Application file: The application to be reviewed (PDF or text)
- Funding program type: KAKENHI (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A/B/C), Early-Career Scientists, Grant-in-Aid for Challenging Research, etc.), PRESTO, CREST, other
- Review category of the research field(Optional): Subcategory number/name (for KAKENHI)
- Past application experience(Optional): Whether this is a first application or a resubmission (attach reasons for rejection if available)
What It Produces
- Overall evaluation
- Current level of completeness (A: High / B: Moderate / C: Needs improvement)
- Greatest strength and greatest weakness (one each)
- Evaluation by review criterion(Rate each item on a 5-point scale)
- Academic background of the research and positioning of this research
- Originality and creativity of the research objectives and content
- Validity of the research plan and methods
- Research execution ability (achievements and track record)
- Broader impact and future prospects of the research
- Specific improvement suggestions(In order of priority)
- Quote of the relevant passage
- Explanation of the problem
- Improvement proposal (including specific example wording)
- Format check
- Compliance with page and character limits
- Appropriateness of figures and tables
- Reference format
Procedure
1. Reading the application and confirming the funding program type
Read the application and confirm the review criteria according to the target funding program type.
Main review criteria for KAKENHI:
| Evaluation item | Indicative weighting |
|---|---|
| Academic importance and validity of the research topic | 30% |
| Validity of the research plan and methods | 30% |
| Originality and creativity of the research topic | 20% |
| Research execution ability and appropriateness of the research environment | 20% |
Main review criteria for JST PRESTO:
- Originality and novelty of the research
- Broader impact of the research
- Feasibility of the research plan
- Ability and suitability of the researcher
2. Structural analysis
Analyze the structure of the application:
- Storyline: The logical flow from background → problem setting → objectives → methods → expected outcomes
- Effectiveness of figures and tables: Whether there is a conceptual diagram showing the overall picture of the research, and whether the data are presented appropriately
- Clarity of key messages: Whether it is clear what knowledge can be obtained only through this research
3. Detailed review by review criterion
3a. Academic background and positioning
- Is the review of prior research sufficient (are major references missing)?
- Is the academic significance of the research clearly stated?
- Are "what remains unsolved" and "why this research is needed now" explicitly stated?
3b. Originality and creativity
- Is the differentiation from existing research clear?
- Is what is claimed to be "new" truly new?
- Is it novelty of approach, novelty of problem setting, or both?
3c. Research plan and methods
- Are specific methods described for each objective?
- Is the timeline realistic (for a 3-year plan, milestones for each year)?
- Are risks and alternatives presented?
- Is there a basis in preliminary data or feasibility?
3d. Research execution capability
- Are the applicant's achievements related to the research topic?
- Is the division of roles among co-researchers clear?
- Is the research environment (equipment, data access, etc.) secured?
4. Checklist of commonly pointed-out issues
Focus on checking the following frequently occurring problems:
- Scattershot approach: The topic is too broad and the focus is not settled
- Insufficient specificity of methodology: Only "examine ~" or "clarify ~" with no specific methods
- Insufficient preliminary data: No data demonstrating feasibility
- Insufficient citation of prior research: Citing only one's own past results and not citing others' research
- Exaggerated claims of ripple effects: Unsupported statements such as "will have a major impact on society"
- Quality of figures and tables: Low resolution, labels too small, unnecessarily complex
- Verbosity of the text: Low information density within the limited number of pages
5. Creating improvement suggestions
For each point raised, create an improvement suggestion in the following format:
【指摘箇所】該当テキストの引用
【問題点】何が問題か
【改善案】具体的な修正文言
【優先度】高/中/低
【根拠】審査基準のどの項目に影響するか
6. Additional checks for resubmission
If the previous review results have been disclosed:
- Are responses to the points raised reflected in the application?
- Are the "changes from the previous submission" clearly described?
- Are the rebuttals to the reviewers' comments constructive?
Quality standards
- The evaluation must be objective based on the review criteria (not personal preference)
- Improvement suggestions must be specific (not "write in more detail," but concrete example wording)
- Also point out strengths (not only weaknesses, but also points to leverage)
- Appropriate review criteria must be applied according to the type of funding program
- Consider the conventions of the research field (the writing style differs between theoretical and experimental fields)
- Suggestions must take into account character and page limits
Available Tools
- Read: Loading the application file
- WebSearch / WebFetch: Confirmation of screening criteria and application guidelines
- Write: Output of review report
- Bash: Character count, etc.