The search for a good story begins with one of our editors conducting an initial assessment of the strengths and primary needs of the draft. For example, some applicants might be good writers but fall short on providing sufficient depth in justifying the urgency of the research, while other applicants’ use of highly technical language can obstruct comprehension and narrative flow. During this assessment, the editor may utilise a range of analytic tools which we have curated and developed to capture explicitly and systematically what many grant reviewers only do intuitively (and thus selectively): the building blocks of a compelling project pitch. The editor will then prepare some initial feedback and questions that will form the basis of a discussion with the applicant to identify story components that are either present, missing, or underdeveloped. This assessment helps the editor ascertain the best strategy and investment of time to enhance the draft, which they will present to the applicant and/or sponsor for approval.

The editor will focus on the priority needs of the draft identified during the Story Analysis, carefully working across the agreed sections, re-writing and re-structuring the text to strengthen the applicant’s arguments and highlighting the significance of their research. For well-developed drafts, the editor will spend the available time on completing a single detailed edit across all the nominated sections. If drafts have some clear strengths and weaknesses, the editor may focus on sections with the greatest need and spend less time on sections where their input would only offer marginal improvements. If the editor has time leftover following the initial edit, they may choose to offer a final copy edit on a case-by-case basis. For under-developed drafts or drafts with complex needs, the available editing time usually needs to be invested in a more targeted manner by focusing on priority sections that require further development. This may mean that not all sections can be edited in detail, or that the editor will need to combine editorial input with high-level recommendations and advice. All edits are tracked, and the editor will place explanatory comments and questions in the margins for the applicant to consider. A clean and track-changed version of the draft will then be emailed to the applicant.

The editor will schedule a time with the applicant to discuss the changes based on The Edit. The discussion usually takes place within 24-48 hours of the editor delivering the revised draft, so the applicant will not be required to have reviewed the edits and comments beforehand. Instead, the editor will explain what has changed and why, helping the applicant to understand the reasoning behind the editing approach, and providing an opportunity for the applicant to ask final clarifying questions. Without this discussion, applicants may at times decide to return to a version of their draft that resembles their original writing rather than embracing a version that could be more persuasive, particularly when The Edit looks unfamiliar or different from what applicants are used to.

With our Enhanced Edit service, the editor has additional hours available to devote to the editing of a grant. The editor will discuss with the applicant or sponsor how these extra hours are best used for the benefit of the application. For example, the editor might agree with the sponsor or applicant to do more intensive editing during a single round of editing, meaning we have more time to address the needs of under-developed drafts. Alternatively, the editor might offer two rounds of editing if we feel this would be advantageous for the applicant and the draft, and if we can accommodate this within the budgeted time.