Proposals are rejected more for being overly ambitious than for lack of ambition. The committee reviewing yours poses this question in several forms: do you have the ability to accomplish this with the data presented in the time frame stated?
The task is mainly scoping down. Answer with a specific question, a method that is not easily criticized, an existing ethical way, and a timeframe with a rough idea of how to keep your first month of something doesn’t go wrong.
Evaluations hinge upon specificity. Not teachers’ interviews, but how many recruited through which gatekeeper, in what timeframe, with what plan when half of them refuse to accept the offer. A proposal that mentions the gatekeeper and the fallback is what a panel looks for, and someone who has thought about a Tuesday afternoon surely writes such a proposal.
All generated proposals seem to contain everything possible. Included in these proposals are mixed methods, three data types, longitudinal research, and a systematic review, to be completed within a one year time frame. When reviewers look at these proposals, they see candidates who have no experience conducting research, because people who have conducted research would not propose such a project.
This answer will address your question and the limitations you provided: time constraints, available data, and the demands of your institution’s ethics approval process. If the given question cannot be answered within those constraints provided, I will offer an alternative question that can be answered and share what was traded off.
Most proposals are assessed and many funding organizations require a declaration about who prepared the proposal. Before ordering, check your scheme’s rules. For a proposal which you submitted, use our sample as a structural reference and prepare your own; for a proposal which you are preparing to support an application that you lead, keep the record.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical research proposal | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concise | 1,500 | $150 | $1.50 | $151.50 |
| Standard | 3,500 | $350 | $3.50 | $353.50 |
| Full submission | 7,000 | $700 | $7 | $707 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Ask on the contact page and a person will answer, usually the same working day. For a live order, reply to your confirmation email and it reaches whoever is handling it.
Ask on the contact page and a person will answer, usually the same working day. For a live order, reply to your confirmation email and it reaches whoever is handling it.
Not useful. A proposal defends a specific question, and choosing that question is something you have to decide before judging if you want to spend a year on it. If the topic is truly open-ended, order research-question development first.
The narrative justification is the part of a bid where most wins occur, and it’s where we will be writing yours. We will need costs and figures to be provided by you or your finance office, as we will not be able to come up with costs that would hold against your institution’s actual costs.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
The methods section appears to be written from the perspective of someone actually conducting the study as it addresses sampling, limitations, ethics, etc. The significance section was too general and would be much better if written specifically for my field of study, as only I know what would interest my colleagues the most. It actually led to less work for me.
Your proposal has passed our committee on the first read this time. Our reviewer said the sampling rationale was clear in your proposal. It is good that the originality reports came with the submission email without having to request them myself since it matters more than it should in my department.
The content was clearly well organized. I asked for Harvard style referencing, but it was returned to me in APA style, which took one email and maybe half a workday to fix. That work, particularly the way it handled counterarguments, was unparalleled. The detection reports came along too, which is standard for my department.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees