The one-page Introduction to the Revised Application is a short document with an outsized impact. It sets the tone for how reviewers judge your resubmission and summarizes your team’s response to their feedback. This guide walks you through a practical, step-by-step approach to writing a persuasive, compelling Introduction.
Write the Introduction Last, Not First
Before you write a single word of the introduction, make sure your broader resubmission strategy is already in place. That means working through your summary statement carefully, talking with colleagues, mentors, and your program officer, and deciding whether resubmitting to the same study section and NOFO is the right call — or whether a different approach (a retooled A0, a different institute, a different agency) makes more sense.
This matters because writing without a clear strategy tends to produce introductions that are reactive and unfocused. The introduction is most effective when it reflects decisions you’ve already made about how to address the reviewers’ concerns.
Start with a Thorough Analysis of the Summary Statement
A strong introduction begins long before you open a blank document. Here’s a process that works well:
1. List every critique. Go through the Summary Statement and write down every concern raised, noting which reviewer raised it. Don’t skip anything, even minor comments.
2. Group critiques by theme. You’ll likely find that multiple reviewers flagged the same underlying issue. Consolidate these into themes. For example, if three reviewers commented on the lack of preliminary data in Aim 2, that becomes one thematic category rather than three separate items.
3. Rank by severity. Organize your themes from most to least egregious. A fundamental disagreement with your hypothesis or scientific premise belongs at the top of the list; a request to increase the font size on figure legends belongs at the bottom.
4. Build a response table with your team. Put your ranked themes into a table with team members as columns. Share it in a cloud-based document so that each co-investigator can weigh in on the critiques most relevant to their work before your team meeting. This exercise is valuable in two ways: it generates the ideas you’ll need to respond to each critique, and it naturally produces the outline for your Introduction.
Structure the Introduction Clearly
NIH gives you a lot of flexibility in how you format the Introduction. The main rule is that it can’t exceed one page. Here’s a structure that tends to work well.
- Opening lines. Start with two or three sentences thanking reviewers for their feedback and noting that their critiques have strengthened the resubmission. Follow that with a sentence highlighting a couple of positive things reviewers said about the project. You can use brief direct quotes here if you’d like. Then end this short paragraph with a sentence signaling that a summary of your changes follows.
- Numbered responses. The body of the Introduction should address your thematic critiques in numbered order, from most to least serious. For each item, lead with a short, underlined phrase that captures the critique — not a lengthy quote — and then describe what you’ve done to address it.
Formatting the Introduction
Here are a few formatting tips to keep in mind:
- Keep critique descriptions brief. Long direct quotes from reviewers take up space you need for your responses, and they draw attention to the problems rather than your solutions. A tight phrase like “Lack of preliminary data in Aim 2” gets the point across without belaboring it.
- Bold your new additions, not the critiques. Bolded text is what catches a reader’s eye on a dense page. Use it to highlight new figures, new publications, newly added team members, or new sections, not the problems you’re addressing. You want reviewers’ attention on what’s improved.
- Number your items. Grant reviews happen out loud, around a table. Numbered items make it easy for reviewers to refer back to specific points during discussion.
Match Your Response Length to the Seriousness of the Critique
Not every critique needs the same amount of space. Minor issues such as formatting, presentation, or small clarifications can be handled in a single line. More substantive methodological concerns might need two or three sentences or more. If a reviewer questioned the core premise or hypothesis of your project, that’s where you take a full paragraph to explain your thinking and demonstrate that the revision genuinely addresses the concern. Getting this calibration right signals to reviewers that you understand which feedback was most significant and that you’ve responded accordingly.
A Note on Alternative Organizational Approaches
Some investigators prefer to organize the Introduction by NIH scoring criteria or by reviewer. Both approaches have merit, but they share a common drawback: they tend to create redundancy. The same issue, raised by two different reviewers or touching on two different scoring criteria, ends up being addressed more than once. Organizing by consolidated thematic critique sidesteps this problem and generally produces a tighter, more readable document.In summary, the resubmission Introduction is short, but must be written thoughtfully. When it’s grounded in a systematic analysis of the Summary Statement, built collaboratively with your team, and formatted with the reviewer experience in mind, it does more than check a procedural box; it makes a genuine case for why your revised application deserves to be funded.
