rgc-write

name	rgc-write
description	Comprehensive writing guide for Hong Kong RGC GRF and CRF proposals. Covers all sections including objectives, literature review, methodology, significance, budget justification, and PI track record.
version	0.1.0

RGC GRF/CRF Proposal Writing Guide

Critical Reminders

• Do NOT modify official section headings in the RGC application form
• Respect page limits strictly: 15 pages for GRF research plan (including references), 20 pages for CRF
• All content must be in English (RGC standard; some schemes may accept Chinese)
• Proofread carefully — language errors suggest carelessness to reviewers

---

GRF Proposal Structure (Standard)

Research Plan (max 15 pages including references)

1. Objectives — Clear, concise statement of research goals
2. Background / Literature Review — Context, gaps, and motivation
3. Research Methodology and Plan — Detailed approach, techniques, analysis
4. Significance and Value — Contribution to the field and broader impact
5. Timetable / Milestones — Realistic project timeline
6. References — Within the page limit

Other Required Components (separate from 15-page limit)

• PI's CV and Publication List
• Budget and Justification
• Ethical Review (if applicable)
• Declaration of Overlap with Other Funding

---

CRF Proposal Structure

CRF proposals follow a similar framework but must additionally address:

• Rationale for Collaboration — Why multi-institutional collaboration is essential
• Role of Each PI / Institution — Clear delineation of responsibilities
• Shared Resources / Infrastructure — How collaboration creates synergy
• Management Plan — Coordination mechanisms, meetings, milestones

---

Core Principles

Know Your Audience

• External reviewers are international experts (often outside Hong Kong)
• Panel members cover broad disciplinary areas
• Each reviewer handles many proposals — clarity and conciseness win
• Assume reviewers are knowledgeable in the general area but not your specific niche

The "What–Why–How" Framework

Every strong proposal answers three questions:

1. What — What is the research problem and what will you achieve?
2. Why — Why is this important and why now?
3. How — How will you accomplish this? (methodology, feasibility)

Write for Skimming

• Use clear headings and subheadings
• Bold key terms and findings
• Start each paragraph with the main point
• Use bullet points for lists of items
• Include figures that summarize complex ideas

---

Section-by-Section Guidance

1. Objectives (半页 / half a page)

Purpose: State what you will achieve — clear, specific, measurable.

Tips:

• 2–4 specific objectives, each in one sentence
• Use action verbs: "develop," "investigate," "establish," "demonstrate"
• Objectives should be achievable within the funding period
• Avoid vague language ("explore," "study," "look into")

Example structure:

This project aims to [overarching goal]. Specifically, we will:

1. Develop ...
2. Investigate ...
3. Demonstrate ...

2. Background / Literature Review (3–5 pages)

Purpose: Establish context, identify the gap, and motivate your research.

Structure:

1. Broad context — Why this field matters (1–2 paragraphs)
2. State of the art — What has been done, key achievements (2–3 pages)
3. Gap / Problem — What remains unsolved or poorly understood
4. Your angle — How your proposed work addresses the gap

Tips:

• Cite 30–50 references, emphasizing recent work (last 5 years)
• Be fair and balanced — acknowledge others' contributions
• Don't just list papers; synthesize and critique
• End with a clear statement of the knowledge gap your project fills
• A summary figure here (conceptual diagram) is highly effective

3. Research Methodology and Plan (5–7 pages)

Purpose: Convince reviewers your approach is sound and feasible.

Structure by objective: For each objective, describe:

• Approach — What method/technique will you use?
• Rationale — Why this approach? What are the alternatives?
• Expected outcomes — What results do you anticipate?
• Potential challenges — What could go wrong? How will you mitigate?

Tips:

• Be specific about methods, not generic
• Include preliminary results if available (strengthens feasibility)
• Describe data analysis plans
• For experimental work: sample sizes, controls, statistical methods
• For computational work: algorithms, software, validation strategies
• Include a methodology flowchart (see rgc-figure skill)

4. Significance and Value (1–2 pages)

Purpose: Articulate the impact and contribution of your research.

Cover:

• Scientific significance — Advances in knowledge, new theories/methods
• Practical/societal impact — Applications, policy implications, industry relevance
• Innovation — What is new or different about your approach?
• Relevance to Hong Kong — Local context or benefit (helpful but not required for GRF)

5. Timetable / Milestones (0.5–1 page)

Tips:

• Use a Gantt chart or table format
• Break into 6-month or quarterly intervals
• Include milestones and deliverables
• Show that the timeline is realistic
• Account for potential delays in critical-path items

6. References

• Included within the page limit — be selective
• Use a consistent citation format throughout
• Prioritize recent, high-impact, and directly relevant works

---

PI's CV and Track Record

This section is critical — reviewers assess your ability to deliver.

Include:

• Academic qualifications and positions
• Publication record — Focus on quality (high-impact journals, citation counts)
• Relevant grants — Past and current funded projects
• Supervision record — PhD students, postdocs supervised
• Selected publications (typically 5–10 most relevant) — Briefly note your contribution and relevance to the proposed project

Tips:

• Highlight publications directly related to the proposal topic
• Show a track record of completing funded projects successfully
• For junior applicants (ECS): emphasize potential and early achievements

---

Budget Justification

A well-justified budget reflects careful planning.

Common categories:

Category	Notes
Personnel (RA/Postdoc)	Justify role, duration, and salary level
Equipment	Quotes required for major items; explain why existing equipment is insufficient
Travel	Conference attendance, fieldwork, collaboration visits — link to project needs
Consumables	Lab supplies, software licenses, data access fees
Others	Participant costs, publication fees, etc.

Tips:

• PI salary is NOT covered by RGC grants
• Every line item should connect to a research objective
• Avoid round numbers without justification
• For CRF: clearly split budget across institutions with rationale

---

Writing Quality Checklist

Language and Tone

• Formal academic English throughout
• No grammatical errors or typos
• Active voice preferred ("We will develop..." not "It will be developed...")
• Confident but not overclaiming
• Jargon defined on first use

Structure and Formatting

• Clear section headings matching RGC template
• Consistent font, spacing, and margins
• Figures and tables numbered with descriptive captions
• Cross-references to figures/tables in the text
• Page limit respected

Content

• Objectives are specific and measurable
• Literature review is comprehensive and current
• Methodology is detailed and justified
• Feasibility is demonstrated (preliminary results, expertise)
• Timeline is realistic
• Budget is well justified
• Innovation is clearly articulated

---

Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. Too ambitious — Proposing more than can be achieved in the funding period
2. Too vague — Generic methodology without specific details
3. Literature gaps — Missing key references that reviewers will notice
4. Weak rationale — Not convincingly arguing why this research matters now
5. Ignoring feasibility — No preliminary data or track record to support the approach
6. Poor presentation — Messy formatting, inconsistent style, spelling errors
7. Budget disconnected from plan — Budget items not clearly linked to objectives
8. Overlap not addressed — Failing to distinguish from other funded/pending projects

---

GRF vs CRF: Key Differences in Writing

Aspect	GRF	CRF
PI structure	Single PI (+ Co-Is)	Multiple PIs across institutions
Page limit	15 pages	20 pages
Collaboration	Optional	Must justify necessity
Budget	Single institution	Split across institutions
Scope	Focused research question	Broader, multi-faceted investigation
Review emphasis	Scientific merit + PI track record	Above + collaboration quality

---

After Rejection

• Read reviewer comments carefully and objectively
• Identify specific weaknesses cited
• Revise and strengthen those areas
• Seek feedback from successful colleagues
• Consider whether a different scheme (GRF vs CRF vs ECS) might be more appropriate
• Resubmit in the next cycle — persistence is key

---

References

• See references/writing-guide.md for additional writing strategies
• See references/review-criteria.md for detailed review criteria and common pitfalls