研究計画書の書き方

残件 NIH G.400 two-page DMS:

Forms I G.400 (released November 2024; last revised December 2025) still says a sample format is provided and "Recommended not to exceed two pages." The live format page says the May 25, 2026 transition date is behind us and the 2026 format must be used. Cite NOT-OD-26-046 and NOT-OD-26-100, not the two-page leftover.

残件 NIH referenced versus refereed:

NOT-OD-26-046 prints "referenced papers reported at conferences." The live Writing a Data Management and Sharing Plan page prints "refereed papers reported at conferences." Quote the notice for locked elements; do not collapse the two strings.

残件 NOT-OD-26-100 mofified:

NOT-OD-26-100 (29 July 2026) leftover-prints that NIH websites "will be mofified" to reflect the transition. The implementation dates in that notice are still the live ones.

残件 NSF two-page PDF upload:

PAPPG 24-1 Chapter II.D.2.i(ii) still says to upload a document of no more than two pages. Supplement 2 (NSF 26-202) strikes that sentence and requires a DMSP created using the tool on Research.gov. The tool's 27 April 2026 release date is behind us.

残件 NSF DSMP typo:

The Supplement 2 banner leftover-prints "continue preparing the DSMP as a PDF upload." The plan's name in the same notice is DMSP. After 27 April 2026, do not file a PDF to dodge the tool.

残件 NSF GFA as future handbook:

NSF's draft Guidance on Financial Assistance comment period ran 24 June–24 August 2026 and is closed. NSF's stated goal is to issue the GFA in early to mid FY2027. The live proposer handbook is still PAPPG 24-1 plus the two supplements.

残件 USC the the topic:

USC's common-mistakes list leftover-prints "understanding the development and scope of the the topic." Quote the focused-proposal sentence; do not copy the doubled the.

残件 USC Purdue conference proposals:

USC still cites Purdue OWL "Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books." The live OWL page is Academic Proposals, which covers conference, journal, and book proposals. It is not a course-proposal or NIH/NSF how-to. Do not use it as this page's outline.

残件 www.ncbi PMC host:

Sudheesh, Duggappa, and Nethra 2016 is still PMC5037942. The live host is pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5037942/, not www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/.

The goal of a research proposal is twofold: to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those findings.

The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly.

The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.

Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’.

An academic proposal is the first step in producing a thesis or major project. Its intent is to convince a supervisor or academic committee that your topic and approach are sound, so that you gain approval to proceed with the actual research.

As well as indicating your plan of action, an academic proposal should show your theoretical positioning and your relationship to past work in the area.

It is sensible also to indicate the limitations of your aims—don’t promise what you can’t possibly deliver.

Give them what they want. Follow the application guidelines exactly.

Follow the application guidelines exactly. (We have repeated this tip because it is very, very important.)

The abstract should explain the key elements of your research project in the future tense. Most abstracts state: (1) the general purpose, (2) specific goals, (3) research design, (4) methods, and (5) significance (contribution and rationale).

What is the central research problem?

What is the topic of study related to that research problem?

What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?

Answer the "So What?" question by explaining why this is important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

Cite, so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.

Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?

Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: describe what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate among scholars?

Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, and methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.].

Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that you have designed a plan worth pursuing.

Keep in mind that the methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is a deliberate argument as to why techniques for gathering information add up to the best way to investigate the research problem.

Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them.

If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

References -- a list of only the sources you actually used in creating your proposal.

Bibliography -- a list of everything you used in creating your proposal, along with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

A useful strategy to help formulate a successful research proposal is to not approach the assignment based on writing for your professor. Rather, imagine a real-world audience that will read your proposal and consider its validity and significance in terms of supporting a final research study and possibly implementing its recommended outcomes.

The "Specific Aims" attachment is required unless otherwise specified in the NOFO.

State concisely the goals of the proposed research and summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed research will have on the research field(s) involved.

List succinctly the specific objectives of the research proposed (e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology).

Organize the Research Strategy in the specified order and use the instructions provided below unless otherwise specified in the NOFO. Start each section with the appropriate heading - Significance, Innovation, Approach.

We encourage you to draft your Specific Aims early in your planning and writing process.

You can mention major experiments. However, we advise against merely describing your experiments as Specific Aims.

When possible, plan Aims where an outcome consistent with the null hypothesis will still contribute to your field and allow your project to continue.

The typical research project grant (R01) applicant proposes about three related Specific Aims that can be completed during a four- or five-year grant.

Describe the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses to be used to accomplish the specific aims of the project. Describe plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project. Describe the experimental design and methods proposed and how they will achieve robust and unbiased results. Include how the data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted, and reference any Resource Sharing Plans and the Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Plan, as appropriate.

Discuss potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success anticipated to achieve the aims.

Applicants proposing to conduct research that will generate scientific data are subject to the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy and must attach a Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Plan.

Do not include hyperlinks in this attachment. Recommended not to exceed two pages.

A Data Management and Sharing Plan should reflect the proposed approach at the time the application is prepared.

The planned updates to the DMS Plan format do not constitute a change in NIH policy.

A DMS Plan must reflect the proposed approach to data management and sharing at the time it is prepared and must be updated throughout the life of the project, as appropriate.

Effective for applications submitted for due dates on or after May 25, 2026, applicants and recipients are required to utilize the new, simpler format.

With the May 25, 2026 transition date behind us, the 2026 DMS Plan format must be used for all applications and progress reports.

The 2023 Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy remains in place, only the format of the Data Management and Sharing Plan used to enforce the policy has changed (NOT-OD-26-046).

Will there be maximum appropriate sharing of scientific data underlying peer-reviewed publications and other findings resulting from the work supported by this award (including preprints, referenced papers reported at conferences, and other findings)? [YES/NO]

If you answered “no” to elements 1, 2, or 3, or if you anticipate that sharing will be limited in some other way, please describe these limitations and the ethical, legal, or technical factors for them (see for example FAQ B.5 and other relevant FAQs). Your response should specify a particular reason(s) for limiting sharing. [300 words maximum]

Each proposal must contain a summary of the proposed project not more than one page in length. The Project Summary consists of an overview, a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity.

The Project Summary should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields, and, insofar as possible, understandable to a broad audience within the scientific domain. It should not be an abstract of the proposal.

The Project Description should outline the general plan of work, including the broad design of activities to be undertaken, and, where appropriate, provide a clear description of experimental methods and procedures. Proposers should address what they want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful.

The Project Description also must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a section labeled "Broader Impacts", and "Broader Impacts" must appear as a heading on its own line.

PIs are cautioned that the Project Description must be self-contained, and that URLs must not be used because: 1) the information could circumvent page limitations; 2) the reviewers are under no obligation to view the sites; and 3) the sites could be altered or deleted between the time of submission and the time of review.

The results must be separately described under two distinct headings: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts;

a listing of the publications resulting from the NSF award (a complete bibliographic citation for each publication must be provided either in this section or in the References Cited section of the proposal); if none, state “No publications were produced under this award.”

In no more than one page, the mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral scholars or graduate students supported by the project, regardless of whether they reside at the submitting organization, any subrecipient organization, or at any organization participating in a simultaneously submitted collaborative proposal.

Proposals must include a document of no more than two pages uploaded under “Data Management and Sharing Plan” in the supplementary documentation section of Research.gov.

Proposals must include a DMSP created using the tool implemented on Research.gov.

Recipients are required to share all data supporting NSF funded publications at the time of publication. Exceptions to this sharing requirement must be described and justified within the DMSP.

The Data Management and Sharing Plan will be reviewed as an integral part of the proposal, considered under Intellectual Merit or Broader Impacts or both, as appropriate for the scientific community of relevance.

A valid Data Management and Sharing Plan may include only the statement that no detailed plan is needed, for example, if no data, samples, physical collections, software, curriculum materials, or other materials are to be produced in the course of the project. However, such a statement must be accompanied by a clear justification.

Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval).

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Failure to be concise. A research proposal must be focused and not be "all over the map" or diverge into unrelated tangents without a clear sense of purpose.

Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review.

Failure to delimit the contextual scope of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.].

Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research.

Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar.

Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues.

What are we going to learn as a result of the proposed project that we do not know now? (goals, aims, and outcomes)

Why is it worth knowing? (significance)

How will we know that the conclusions are valid? (criteria for success) (2)

• 課題、委員会テンプレート、NIH通知、またはNSF solicitationが草稿の横に開いている。
• 題はスローガンではなく、読者が見分けられる問題を名指している。
• すべての研究問いは、述べた方法で答えられる。
• 文献節は論文要約の積み重ねではなく、USCの5つのCを使う。
• 方法は未来形で、反復できるほど具体的である。
• 知見は出てこない。想定する証拠の種類はある。
• limitationsとdelimitationsの両方が名指されている。
• 倫理審査は、実在の委員会か、正直な「不要」の理由で扱われている。
• 科学データを生成するNIH申請は、残件の2ページG.400見本ではなく、2026 DMS形式（yes/no質問、制限があれば300語、ハイパーリンクなし）を含む。
• NSF草稿はBroader Impactsを独立した行に置き、Project DescriptionからURLを除き、博士研究員または大学院生に給与を出すときはメンタリング計画を付け、Research.govのツールでDMSPを作成する。
• 日程と、求められるなら予算は、名指した人々が実行できる。
• 引用は指定のスタイルに合い、実際に読んだlandmark worksを含む。
• 指導教員、方法の読者、非専門家がそれぞれ草稿を見ている。