Short abstract

We analyzed 9,000+ funded and rejected biomedical grant proposals from NIH and Novo Nordisk Foundation to examine the link between promotional language and grant success. Grants with more promotional words have higher funding odds. Younger, male, and highly cited PIs use more promotional language.

Long abstract

Grant proposals play a critical role in advancing medical science, yet little is known about how language influences funding success. This study analyzes over 9,000 biomedical grant proposals from the NIH and Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF), including both funded and rejected applications, to investigate the relationship between promotional language and grant success. Using a validated lexicon of 139 promotional words, we find that grants containing a higher percentage of promotional language are significantly more likely to be funded. Specifically, an increase in promotional wording raises the odds of funding by up to 60%, even after controlling for factors such as a principal investigator’s (PI) prior grant success, publication impact, and proposal characteristics. Additionally, we examine who uses promotional language and find that younger PIs, male PIs, and those applying for larger grants tend to use more promotional words. While the use of promotional language may reflect confidence in an idea’s importance, it also raises questions about whether such language enhances or distorts the review process. Future research should explore the causal mechanisms linking promotional language and funding outcomes, including its potential influence on reviewer perception and recall. Understanding the role of language in funding decisions is crucial for promoting fairness and transparency in grant evaluations. These findings contribute to broader discussions on science communication, innovation, and equity in biomedical research funding.