So: evaluation actually only evaluates the application itself. Do not judge the actual academic level. Therefore: a high academic level does not mean that the application can be passed. In short: don't pin your hopes, attention and work focus on acquaintances, back doors or big trees (reason: besides-the fund evaluation is relatively fair; There are five judges; A good title is half the battle. The title should be "exact, eye-catching and distinctive". [The topic is the first impression and the finishing touch] Answer "What to do, what to aim at, what method to use and what problem to solve" in the shortest possible sentence. Need to be scrutinized repeatedly. The size of the topic should be moderate to prevent "making a mountain out of a molehill" 400-word abstract: Be specific and don't be empty [it's online content]. Choosing the right topic = Voluntary innovation is the soul of fund application, and it is also the key innovation of evaluation and approval, including: new theory; New methods; New system; New law source innovation = originality+uniqueness source: there is a prospect of further development. (Yangtze River Source) "Substantial Innovation" National Natural Science Foundation supports basic research and applied basic research (know what, know why and know how). Therefore, the topic of "meaningful" is not enough and belongs to the scope of fund support. ("Applied research" can apply for "co-funded" projects. ) it is better to change the place without firing a shot. The main points of the topic should not be "big and empty". If the topic has an application background, it is necessary to "make it clear", that is, to make it clear where the application background is. If it is an "interdisciplinary subject", it should not be "superficial and formal, but substantive." Important and Time-consuming Topic (Abstract) —————————1 0% Project Basis ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————— (Not afraid of overlapping with the "research foundation" part) —— You can strive for the comment that the project foundation is fully comprehensive. If you want to write the reasons for developing this project, you'd better write what you found in the previous research, the implication is: "Only I can do this project", otherwise the implication against your comment can be: "The project you wrote is very important, but it is more suitable for others to do". "Fill in the blanks" is not the basis of the project. Reason: China's fund is to "occupy a place in the world" rather than "fill the gap"; "Fill in the blanks" is essentially "tracking". Mainly refer to "no more, no less" and be "new" [online]-avoid being too bloated and comment on "insufficient understanding of the situation". The main points of the research content and objectives and the key problems to be solved are: concentrated content, clear objectives, detailed writing (applications with specific research content are easy to be praised by experts)-avoid commenting that "the research content is not specific enough". The research goal is to solve scientific and academic problems, not to find the best technology or improve performance, and to avoid being criticized as not being supported by the National Natural Science Foundation. The "key problem to be solved" cannot be omitted, but must be accurate-avoid comments that "the application is obvious and there is no depth". Not too much-avoid "the applicant lacks the ability to complete this project". The research content should be "focused". It's good to solve one or two scientific problems. Don't "cover everything"-avoid commenting on "too much content and not focused" (this is a common problem in many fund applications). Technical route and feasibility analysis of the research method to be adopted "research method" and "research content" should be distinguished-to avoid "unclear thinking" in the comments. If the "research method and technical route" is clearly written, it is easy to get a comment of "strong feasibility". However, when there are confidentiality issues, it is advisable to deal with "research methods and technical routes" (avoiding all methods to solve a problem)-avoiding comments that "the scope is too wide and the route is not clear". "Feasible" means "academically feasible", not just "I have several professors, several graduate students and several instruments". "Research team"+"research conditions"+"academic thought" = feasible features and innovations should be to the point, and should not be inflated or boasted. You should write about the characteristics of your research and innovative academic ideas, not the characteristics of this field. Advocate "interdisciplinary", but where is the intersection? "Fill in the blanks" is not a feature and innovation, so I won't write it here. The annual research plan and expected results plan should be specific. Avoid the following plans: the first year of literature research, the second year of experimental research, and the third year of writing research reports. The inclusion of academic activities and international exchanges in the plan will help to add color and win additional funds. The expected progress doesn't need to be too specific, just about it. Especially in basic research, the subject is allowed to be revised continuously in the process. Expected results. For example, it is not good to expect to publish XX papers in core journals at home and abroad. The key is what level to achieve. Should be consistent with the "research objectives". Emphasize quality. General goal of research foundation and working conditions: get the comments of "strong research ability" and "basic working conditions". Working Basis: Avoid writing only about the working basis and accumulation of our laboratory. The working basis of our laboratory is useful, but we should introduce the applicant's work. Working conditions: the basic conditions should be written. The fund does not support the purchase of large instruments, but can only "write" resumes lacking some small equipment (the actual use of funds is another matter): not only the applicant's, but also the main members of the project team. When introducing works, focus on works related to this topic. The catalogue of papers should have ranking, title, published name and time. (This is beneficial for reviewers to judge the ability of the research group, and it is also the embodiment of scientific style. ) Project undertaken: name, serial number, funding source, year, month and content; You can't just write "completed" and "progressing smoothly" (you can write about the level of published papers, citation, postgraduate training results, etc. It is very important to know more about the domestic and international trends of this major at ordinary times, so as to avoid cramming after the Spring Festival every year. Application is the accumulation and sublimation of usual preparation work. Familiar with capital application process and related laws and regulations. Such as: applicant's conditions [working years, on-the-job graduate students], limited application terms [new], 5% management fee, 15% service fee [new]. Understand the fund approval process. First trial [five experts, A, B, C, etc. , you can ask to quit], and in the second instance [non-knowledge project], at the same time let the fund Committee know about your work and ability. Introduce their work in various ways of communication (they are willing to communicate). The foundation that has applied for will introduce its achievements (send articles, etc.) at any time. ). The format of the application is strictly in accordance with the regulations of the Fund Committee. Don't fall in love with small things. There is no objection to using other means.