Generally speaking, NSFC encourages innovation and exploration, which is the soul of NSFC. Therefore, if the application is written conservatively, there is a great possibility of being rejected. Summing up my experience in writing applications and evaluating the National Natural Fund for more than ten years, the projects that are not funded are basically applications without much new ideas.
However, there is another situation. After the application is submitted, the response is "bragging", and the content to be learned in the application is untenable or impossible to achieve.
There are two situations in the book that are considered as "bragging". One situation is really "bragging", in order to get the project, writing unfounded "innovation". In another case, your innovation may be too advanced and beyond the understanding of the judges, who think it is impossible to complete the research content.
The degree of innovation is sometimes difficult to determine!
I thought of this problem again after I left the night before yesterday. That's what I was thinking. If I were a judge, I would see that those who walk in front are "advanced" and those who walk behind are "backward". Generally speaking, I will agree that subsidies are "advanced" and will not agree that subsidies are "backward". Moreover, the more people in front, the higher the evaluation score, and it is best for me to see more clearly in front.
However, if the person walking in front of me is too advanced and out of my sight, I am not sure whether this person exists. At this time, it is necessary to judge its possibility. In the actual evaluation work, this situation is very likely to be rejected.
Therefore, when writing applications, we must pay attention to the degree of innovation, especially what is the basis of innovation. If the key problem (innovation) to be solved is deduced step by step according to the current progress or data, people feel justified and have a great possibility of gaining recognition. If it is groundless, it will often feel unreasonable and be rejected.
In fact, in the actual evaluation, rejected books are not necessarily bad, and some rejected good books may be the reason why they are not understood by book reviewers.
A book with a very good innovation may not be certain, so there was a blog post on this issue the other day.
The simplest project is often a notebook, in which some research data of the former applicant has shown signs of "innovation". Although this' innovation' has gone beyond the reviewer's' sight', these obtained research data have persuaded the reviewer to give the conclusion of' priority funding'.
Of course, this does not include the abnormal factors in the fund application review.
The statement that "the earth moves around the sun" is not new "common sense" for people today, but it is incomprehensible to people in Copernicus' era, and it is regarded as "heresy", and Copernicus did not understand it for everyone.