NIH R01·United States
20%
Four out of five proposals don't get funded.
Grant reviewComing soon
The submission you can't take back.
Most researchers send a grant in, then wait months for the panel scores to land. Explore Science's grant review reads your proposal against the actual rubric your panel will use, before you submit. So the feedback you act on is the feedback that decides the outcome.
§ I · Stakes
The cost of submitting weakly
A year of work, scored in one pass.
Panels fund a small fraction of what they read. The proposals that win don't always have the best ideas, but they do have the fewest unforced errors.
NHMRC Investigator·Australia
12%
One in eight reaches the green light.
ARC Discovery·Australia
18%
The rest go back to the drawing board, or stay there.
§ II · Method
What grant review is
Pre-submission. By a reviewer who reads the rubric.
Explore Science's manuscript review is built on the autonomous research architecture from Explore Science: multi-stage reasoning across the document, DOI-verified citations, and eight scored criteria. The same architecture, retuned to read a grant against the panel's actual scoring rubric, is the substrate this is built on.
The reviewer reads your proposal the way a careful panellist would: in detail, against the criteria, with citations. It surfaces the weaknesses that would otherwise cost you funding, and it tells you which ones are worth the revision time. The feedback is structural, not stylistic.
§ III · Pipeline
How it works
Four stages, end to end.
The pipeline you'd expect from a deep-reading review system: ingest, read, score, deliver. Up to a couple of hours of considered analysis per proposal.
Input
Upload your proposal.
Your draft and the rubric you're writing against.
Phase 01 · Read
Against the actual scoring criteria.
~15 min · DOI-verified literature alongside the rubric.
Phase 02 · Score
Section by section, flag by flag.
~30 min · Quantified weaknesses, not vibes.
Output
A reviewer-style assessment.
Panel-ready. Read it, revise, submit.
§ IV · Rubric
What's in the review
Every criterion your panel will score.
The review tracks the same dimensions a real panellist scores against. Each one comes back with quantified flags, not adjectives.
Significance
Whether the proposal addresses an important problem and what would change if it succeeded. We test the claim against the field's current state, not against the applicant's enthusiasm for it.
Innovation
What's actually new. The review reads the novelty claim against the recent literature with DOI-verified citations, and flags the parts a sharp panellist would deduct on.
Approach
Whether the methodology is sound, feasible, and well-justified. We check the design against credible alternatives, surface assumptions that won't hold, and name the analyses panels expect to see worked through.
Investigators
Whether the team can deliver what's proposed. The review reads bio sketches against the scope of the work and flags expertise gaps a panel will silently penalise.
Environment
Institutional support, infrastructure, collaborators. Underrated by applicants, where panels quietly deduct points. The review checks whether the supporting case is made or assumed.
Budget Justification
Whether costs are proportionate and explained. The most common source of margin-note objections, and the easiest section to fix once a reviewer has named the problem.
§ V · Coverage
Funding bodies
Every major rubric. NIH to NSFC.
The review reads against whatever rubric you upload. The bodies below are the ones we're prioritising at launch, across the US, UK, Europe, Australia, Canada, and Asia.
- NIHNational Institutes of Health
- NSFNational Science Foundation
- DOEDepartment of Energy
- DARPADefense Advanced Research Projects Agency
- NASANational Aeronautics and Space Administration
- HHMIHoward Hughes Medical Institute
- CZIChan Zuckerberg Initiative
- SimonsSimons Foundation
- GatesGates Foundation
- UKRIUK Research and Innovation
- MRCMedical Research Council
- EPSRCEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- WellcomeWellcome Trust
- ERCEuropean Research Council
- HorizonHorizon Europe
- DFGDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- ANRAgence Nationale de la Recherche
- SNSFSwiss National Science Foundation
- NHMRCNational Health and Medical Research Council
- ARCAustralian Research Council
- CIHRCanadian Institutes of Health Research
- NSERCNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
- NSFCNational Natural Science Foundation of China
- JSPSJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
Don't see yours? The waitlist field below is the right place to say so.
§ VI · Access
Get early access
The waitlist is open.
We're rolling out grant review in small batches as the architecture is tuned for each rubric. Tell us which grants you write for, and we'll bring you in when your spot opens.