As I’m scoring fellowships I have some suggestions for those writing one, now or in the future:

1- Make it easy for the reader to find the info we need. Use headings, separate types of presentations (oral/poster/presenter/invited) and papers (first author or not)
2-Give the info that was asked in a succinct manner. No need to write hundreds of words just because you are allowed to.

If they ask you to list your top 5 papers/awards/presentations but you have 3 don’t make up stuff that is not relevant

We can see through that 🤨
3- Under publications, don’t add things that are not publications to increase numbers (eg conference abstract - in my opinion that’s not a paper). For me, this immediately raises a red flag 🚩 and makes me wonder what else might be hidden in the application
5-Start early and get plenty feedback from colleagues, supervisors and mentors. Importantly, ask for what type of feedback you want from each person: spell check, is it a robust study design, does the background make sense, are conclusions appropriate...?
6-There are things that you can’t change such as number of papers or presentations. But the writing can make a huge difference! Applications that are easy to follow, give me the info I’m looking for & don’t waste my time make me feel smart 😆 & are likely to improve your score 😉
7- Preparing early also includes thinking ahead about career options. This is something you should be doing with your supervisors and mentors regularly. Unfortunately science is a very competitive sector, but it’s one that takes time.

Plan in advance 1/
7b- It takes time to produce, write & publish high quality research, plus tick all other boxes - expectations are high for a ‘complete package’ also in terms of awards & community contribution

Track records are not built overnight
You can follow @FZMarques.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: