It really is a bit of a minefield. I just want to help people get the resources to do good science!

Basically, if you're tempted to put NFκB in your Project Narrative, resist.

we (@marekmcgann.bsky.social and I) have also written about this
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

The page you linked says first "general strengths and weaknesses", both, which is why I suggest positive comments on those papers upon which your work relies. I get the tip-toe on the potential negatives. I've also seen people use their own preliminary data really well in this section.

Pointing out an issue in rigor or reproducibility in your proposal should be done for 1 of 2 reasons: The paper's point is critical to your work and you have confirmed it with preliminary data, or the issue partly drives your proposed work. But tact. Always tact.

And it is okay to note potential deficiencies or differences, but not slag the work or authors. For example, if a study was only done in cross section, that could be a point of comment if relevant. If the N was low, maybe consider why (difficult to get samples?).

If you think a study is not strong, and your work depends upon it being right, then my advice would be to generate preliminary data that triangulate on (not replicate) the less-robust work. If the work is right, your triangulation should have a specific result, right?

Oh, I don't agree with the idea that Rigor and Reproducibility is about slagging the field! More like noting why you are willing for your work to depend upon a paper--why you think it's right. Keywords like, "In a robust study..." "In a well-powered analysis..."

In some places I maintain a studied naiveté. If they like the name "gold standard" for "rigor and reproducibility", okay. I would not change all language, just tag it. "In keeping with the intention of "Gold Standard Science", we present our plans for rigor and reproducibility." Or something.

There are bears and there are LLMs.

3-sentence Project Narrative for NIH:

1. Completely lay sentence with no jargon describing what the research is about.
2. A sentence that begins, "This is relevant to public health because..."
3. A sentence that begins, "This work supports the [NIH or your IC] priority: [quote priority].

We call the Project Narrative the "Uncle Bob on a Tractor" section, written like you'd describe it to your uncle at Thanksgiving.

Here's how we write it:

Hope people find this helpful.

I've been pretty quiet all year, largely because I didn't feel like I had any more surety in the changing landscape than anyone else. The 3 elements above aren't really much different than we've always advised for grant proposals, but I think the emphasis has changed

3) Tag Gold Standard Science.

When addressing Rigor and Reproducibility in NIH grants, consider use the administration's phrase.

It's always a good idea to plant flags like this--using the language from NOFO's or other agency documents--to demonstrate that you know what the agency is looking for.

2) Include milestones.

Yes, it's a grant, not a contract, but a clear plan of work with benchmarks will help.

Folks with experience with the mission-driven agencies (USDA, NASA, DOE, etc.) have experience in setting clear goals and expectations. Think through near- and longer-term deliverables.

1) Articulate your impact.

For NIH, the "Project Narrative", which gets published as the "Public Health Relevance" statement will need to be very clear without jargon.

For NSF, consider focusing the Broader Impacts on the ones with economic and technical impact.

This has always been important.