RSTMH Early Careers Grants: insights from the 2025 Awards Cycle
Blog Authors: Greta Holmes and Iris Campbell Lange
Once again, we surpassed all previous records of application numbers, with a total of 3,663 received in 2025. We began by conducting an initial check on all applications, looking to ensure amongst other things that the form was complete, two reference letters were attached, and that it was written in English. This year 239 applications were deemed to be ineligible at this stage, which highlights the importance of making sure your application has met all the requirements of the process. After this first check our team of Global Assessors review each application to consider the strength of the proposed research, and the suitability of the applicant to the programme. Global Assessors (GAs) are volunteer experts in Global Health, and as part of their assessment they decide whether an application is ‘fundable’ and provide a series of numeric scores relating to each review criteria. These criteria are:
- Early career status
- Validity of the research question
- Quality of the project design and methodology
- Feasibility of delivering the project outcomes
- Accuracy and reasonableness of the budget
- Impact of the research project
- Value for money
From this longlist of ‘fundable’ applications, the team at RSTMH look to match each application to a donor.
Each year there are common and consistent themes in the reasons that applications are not considered fundable. Below we look at some of these themes and provide top tips on how to prevent yourself from falling into these traps!
Issue: Methodology not strong enough
Examples of feedback from assessors:
“The applicant should not be funded because the methodology was not fully described in the application, making it impossible to evaluate whether the proposed budget is accurate or reasonable.”
“The current methodology does not comprehensively address the research questions outlined in the proposal.”
Solution: Give clear, detailed methods – explain exactly how you will carry out your research, how data will be collected and analysed, and why your chosen approach is appropriate.
Issue: Clarity of proposal
Examples of feedback from assessors:
“The topic is too broad and does not clearly align with the research questions... For example, it is unclear how the sample size is determined and how the sampling will be conducted.”
“The project is conceptually interesting but lacks focus, methodological clarity, and practical grounding.”
Solution: Structure your proposal clearly – ensure your narrative flows well and that your aims, methods, and expected outcomes are easy for reviewers to follow.
Issue: Weak impact or not original
Examples of feedback from assessors:
“The originality of this component remains uncertain without supporting data or comparisons”
“Although the project proposal is a standard systematic review, it is not clear that the topic of the review will lead to a major impact”
“The proposal overstates its expected impact”
Solution: Show why your project matters – clearly articulate the potential impact of your work and why it is important within global health or tropical medicine.
Issue: Budget problems
Examples of feedback from assessors:
“The budget does not align with the proposed work.”
“The research methodology does not seem to align with budgetary requirements.”
“The budget is severely constrained for the proposed scope.”
Solution: Justify your budget – provide realistic costs, explain why each item is needed, and demonstrate value for money wherever possible.
Issue: Lack of strong supervision
Examples of feedback from assessors:
“The supervisor's reference fails to demonstrate meaningful oversight, providing only general praise for the applicant without commenting on the project’s feasibility or technical complexity.”
“Unfortunately, none of the recommendation letters explicitly indicated how to support the applicant.”
Solution: Demonstrate strong supervision – make sure your supervisory support is clear, appropriate, and well aligned to the work you plan to deliver.
Issue: Eligibility and Scope
Examples of feedback from assessors:
“This topic is not of relevance in tropical medicine or global health.”
“The design is too expansive for the grant's scope.”
“The project is overly complex for the scale and scope of an RSTMH Early Career Grant.”
Solution: Check your eligibility and scope – ensure you meet the Early Career criteria, have not previously received substantial funding, and that your project fits the programme’s aims.
This graph shows a visual breakdown of the common reasons applications were rejected in the 2025 awards cycle.
You can also read here the 2024 breakdown of common rejection reasons.
If you have any questions, please get in touch with our Grants Manager, Greta Holmes: greta [dot] holmes [at] rstmh [dot] org.