Grant Review Panels in 2025: WCER Researchers Share Tips for Writing Strong Proposals
January 21, 2026 | By Office of Research & Scholarship Communications
As federal and foundation grants became smaller, scarcer, or harder to win over the past year, WCER researchers who reviewed proposals for major funders had a front-row seat to the changes.
They reported agency restructuring, delays, less time for proposal review, and at least one important change in oversight, based on what they witnessed or experienced while reviewing proposals as part of a panel or on an ad hoc basis.
Four WCER researchers agreed to share their observations and provide advice for future submitters. The grant applications they collectively saw came from four major funders: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Education (ED), the William T. Grant Foundation (WTG), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The researchers were asked to reflect on whether review panels had changed since January 2025 — and, if so, how. They were also asked to consider whether any directions given to them for the review process changed.
Reviewing NSF proposals
A WCER researcher who reviewed NSF grant proposals said outwardly the process was similar: there were around 20 applications, all with at least one “very good” or “excellent” rating were discussed, and the reviewing panel looked similar to previous panels on which the researcher served.
But an extra layer of scrutiny loomed.
“The only noticeable difference was that the program officer (PO) knew that every proposal they recommended would be reviewed by the current administration,” this researcher said.
“As panelists, we were able to make any arguments for or against the recommendation, but the PO was clear about what proposals they would not be able to successfully recommend,” the researcher added. “It did not influence the outcome of the panel I was on, but it certainly could have.”
The researcher encouraged those submitting in the future to be cognizant of the major changes and uncertainties around NSF and how that could complicate things.
“The NSF has been fundamentally restructured, will have an uncertain but potentially drastically reduced budget, has undergone a significant change in leadership, has lost a large portion of its staff, and has been relocated — and all of that was before the federal shutdown,” the researcher noted. “Program officers and program directors (PDs) have been largely kept in the dark about pending changes. A small but significant change is that most requests for proposals (RFPs) no longer list specific POs as contacts, but instead list a generic address for the RFP or the unit. One of the best things proposers can do is to develop relationships with POs, and that is more difficult under the current system.”
But proposers should still write a one-page synopsis of their proposal and send it well ahead of the deadline, this researcher said.
“While POs and PDs at NSF cannot be as open as those at NIH or IES, as they make actual funding recommendations, they will still provide feedback on proposals and advice on the suitability of proposals for various RFPs,” this researcher said. “If you have never submitted an NSF proposal, definitely talk to someone who has, as the process is different than at other federal agencies, and there are usually webinars (also recorded) about major calls.”
Also important to keep in mind is that NSF review panels tend to be quite broad, this researcher said: “Even for education RFPs, panelists will come from a wide range of backgrounds, so it’s important to write for a diverse audience.”
Reviewing ED proposals
A WCER researcher who reviewed proposals on a panel for ED, where the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is based, reported many delays, including applications sent to panel members late and panels scheduled late.
“In addition, there were multiple starts, stops, and restarts, which led to shifting and unclear timelines to review applications, and scheduling and rescheduling panel meetings,” this researcher said. “Due to these delays, panel members sometimes had very little time (much less than typical) or an unclear amount of time to review a set of applications before the panel meeting.”
This researcher also said there were no changes to the overall review process or the number of proposals that panel members reviewed. Instructions to panel members were essentially the same, and topics did not change substantially, though some focuses did.
As in the past, panel members were told to study the Request for Applications (RFA) and base comments and scores on how well the RFA’s content and criteria were addressed. This researcher also said ED submitters should review the RFA carefully, communicate with the program officer, and structure applications around RFA content and guidelines.
Given the abbreviated timeline to review grant applications that this researcher experienced, “the importance of clear organization and clear and straightforward writing is amplified,” the researcher advised. “Make it easy for reviewers to find the content they need to comment on and score.. Consider call-out boxes, tables, figures, and strategic (limited) use of bold typeface to break up the text and communicate essential content.”
The researcher also urged submitters to leverage “substantial resources and collaborators in the SoE and WCER” to improve their proposals, including proposal editors and budget and finance colleagues.
“Editors have significant expertise; their feedback will improve the quality of your application and improve readability so that panel members can easily find essential information,” this researcher said. “Editors can also identify essential issues you may not have addressed.”
“Funder policies in particular are changing frequently,” the researcher added. “It is helpful to have multiple perspectives and multiple reviews of policy criteria relative to your application. Budget and Finance colleagues' feedback on the budget can improve clarity and consistency of project procedures in the narrative.”
Reviewing NIH and WTG proposals
A WCER researcher who reviewed NIH proposals noted delays due to government resets and an online process instead of meeting in person. The process included discussion of a few applications that were unlikely to succeed, the researcher said, because they dealt with elements of structural racism — a topic now discouraged by the federal government.
“Stay the course and be attentive to guidelines as they change,” this researcher advised. “The program officers are your friend.”
Another WCER researcher, who has done reviews for WTG, had similar advice: “Leverage program officers as much as possible in the application process.”
