F31 Applicant Background and Goals: What Replaced It

F31 Applicant Background and Goals: What Replaced It

For NIH fellowship applications due on or after January 25, 2025, the F31 "Applicant's Background and Goals for Fellowship Training" attachment no longer exists. It was replaced by Candidate's Goals, Preparedness, and Potential: 3 pages, four required headings, and no grades anywhere in the biosketch.

Our view: an F31 "background and goals" example written for the retired form will mislead you. The old headings opened with your dissertation narrative. The new form asks you to name two to four strengths and two to four development areas, and reviewers read that list against your training plan, your sponsor's statement and your referees' letters. If you are drafting now, the PhD research dossier rubric is the closest GradPilot match for the preparedness and scientific-perspective parts.

Every NIH page quoted below was checked on October 29, 2026, including the FORMS-I fellowship instructions released December 2025. NIH's site blocks scripted downloads, so we read each page through a text reader and quote only what it showed. Your funding opportunity can set different limits, so check it before you submit. For the wider PhD document set, see the PhD essays hub.

On this page: old form against new · the four headings · the self-assessment · constructed example · sponsor and referee alignment · due dates and AI notice · checklist

What NIH changed in 2025, old form against new

NIH's changes page sets the scope: the new forms apply "for due dates on or after January 25, 2025." The table below compares the archived FORMS-H fellowship instructions (released August 5, 2023) with the current FORMS-I fellowship instructions and the NIH page-limit table.

NIH also changed what it calls you. Its candidate guidance says: "typically, the student/trainee is the candidate and their university is the applicant."

How to spot an outdated example. It is written for the old form if it uses the heading "Doctoral Dissertation and Research Experience" or "Activities Planned Under this Award", lists courses with grades, includes a "Selection of Sponsor and Institution" section, or calls the student "the applicant". Borrow content ideas from it if you like, but not its structure.

The four headings, in NIH's own words

FORMS-I tells you to "Start each section with the appropriate heading – Overall Training Goals, Candidate's Preparedness, Candidate Self-Assessment, and Scientific Perspective." Use those exact headings, not the looser wording on NIH's summary page ("fellowship qualifications" and so on).

Our arithmetic: 0.5 + 1 + 0.75 + 0.75 = 3 pages, the limit.

Two details change how you draft:

• Preparedness is not your CV in prose. FORMS-I says biosketch information "may be expanded upon, but not simply duplicated, in this section." Pick the two or three experiences that explain why you can do this training plan, and say what each taught you.
• Scientific Perspective is about the field, not only your project. It asks for "a broader, unresolved scientific question". A section that only restates your aims skips half the prompt.

The self-assessment is where the review criteria meet

FORMS-I asks candidates "to define their current characteristics (such as relevant skills, abilities, traits or attitudes) and areas to develop". It names three kinds of skill: technical, operational ("practices that promote rigorous and reproducible science, research safety, animal, or human welfare") and professional ("management, leadership, communication, teamwork").

Now read the Research Training Plan criterion. Reviewers "Discuss whether the research training plan identifies areas of needed development and contains appropriate, realistic activities and milestones to address those needs." And the Training Activities and Timelines instructions ask you to "Explain how the training activities will develop the areas defined in the self-assessment section".

Our view: every development area you name should have a matching, dated line in Training Activities and Timelines, under the same words. The basis is the two sentences above: NIH tells reviewers to look for the areas and the activities, and tells you to connect them.

The countercase: some development areas are met by the project itself, such as designing your first independent analysis. Then the matching entry is a dated project milestone, not an invented workshop.

What NIH does not publish: how many pages each heading should get, or whether reviewers prefer two items or four.

Constructed example: a 3-page skeleton and two excerpts

Constructed example, written by us, not a real applicant statement.

Context (invented): Maya Okafor is a second-year neuroscience PhD student. Her sponsor is Dr. S. Menon. Her invented project asks how an invented astrocyte receptor, "R9", affects memory consolidation in mice. Every name, receptor and result below is made up.

Constructed example: weak and revised self-assessment

Constructed example, written by us, not a real applicant statement. The weak version (50 words):

I am a hard-working and curious scientist with strong technical skills. I work well in teams and communicate clearly. Areas where I can improve include learning new techniques and building my confidence in presenting. I am confident that this fellowship will help me grow into an independent researcher in neuroscience.

The revised version (142 words):

Current characteristics. (1) Surgical and imaging skill: I have performed 40 cranial window surgeries and run my own two-photon sessions since my first rotation. (2) Persistence with failed methods: when my first viral construct gave no expression, I traced the problem to the promoter and redesigned it with Dr. Menon. (3) Clear teaching: I led the lab's imaging-analysis tutorial for four rotation students.

Areas for development. (1) Statistical design for longitudinal imaging data, addressed by the mixed-models course in Year 1 and monthly meetings with Dr. Patel (invented co-sponsor). (2) Writing for publication, addressed by drafting the Aim 1 manuscript in Year 2 with a fixed revision schedule. (3) Leading a small project team, addressed by supervising one undergraduate on Aim 2 from Year 2, with a written mentoring plan.

Each area appears under the same name in Training Activities and Timelines.

Why the revision works:

• It gives three of each, inside NIH's "Two to four" range.
• Each strength carries a checkable fact (an invented count, a named problem, a named role). "hard-working and curious" is a claim a reviewer cannot check.
• Each development area names its activity and its year, which is what the Research Training Plan criterion asks reviewers to find. Statistics is a technical skill; writing and team leadership are professional ones, in FORMS-I's categories.

Constructed example: scientific perspective paragraph

Constructed example, written by us, not a real applicant statement. The field claims in it are invented for the example; a real draft would cite a source for each. (125 words)

Memory research has treated astrocytes mainly as support cells, so most models of consolidation are written in neuronal terms. The open question I care about is whether glial signaling sets the timing of consolidation or only supplies the energy for it. The two answers predict different results when astrocyte signaling is blocked during sleep, which makes the question testable. My project addresses one piece: whether the invented receptor R9 is needed in the first six hours after learning. A positive result would not settle the broader question, because R9 is one receptor among many. It would show that a single glial pathway can change when memories stabilize, and it would give the field a clean manipulation to test the timing model in other brain regions.

Annotations, tied to the FORMS-I wording:

1. "most models of consolidation are written in neuronal terms" answers "Why this field of science is important".
2. "whether glial signaling sets the timing" is "A broader, unresolved scientific question".
3. "My project addresses one piece" separates the project from the field question, which the prompt asks you to do.
4. "A positive result would not settle the broader question" bounds the claim instead of inflating it.

Make your statements, your sponsor's and your letters agree

The Candidate's Preparedness and Potential criterion tells reviewers to "Assess whether the candidate and sponsor statements as well as the referee letters provide convincing evidence that the candidate possesses qualities (such as scientific understanding, creativity, curiosity, resourcefulness, and drive)". NIH asks each of the three writers a near-identical question:

If your self-assessment names statistics as a gap and your sponsor names grant writing, a reviewer has two plans to reconcile. Share your final development areas with your sponsor before they write section E, and give your referees the same list. NIH's reference letter page also sets the count: "At least three, but no more than five, reference letters are required unless otherwise specified in the funding opportunity", and "The sponsor/co-sponsor(s) of the application cannot be counted toward the three required references." If a referee asks you to draft your own letter, read our guide on being asked to draft your own fellowship reference letter first.

Due dates and NIH's notice on AI use

The standard due dates table lists F Series Fellowships (new, renewal, resubmission) at April 8, August 8 and December 8. The next one is Tuesday, December 8, 2026; after that, Thursday, April 8, 2027. The same page says: "Check your funding opportunity for opportunity-specific due dates. Not all opportunities or programs use standard due dates."

On authorship, FORMS-I says: "Candidates are expected to write the application, including the research training project section. However, the sponsor should review drafts and provide constructive feedback to the candidate throughout the application process."

NIH notice NOT-OD-25-132, effective "for applications submitted to the September 25, 2025, receipt date and beyond", states its policy in full:

NIH will not consider applications that are either substantially developed by AI, or contain sections substantially developed by AI, to be original ideas of applicants. If the detection of AI is identified post award, NIH may refer the matter to the Office of Research Integrity to determine whether there is research misconduct while simultaneously taking enforcement actions including but not limited to disallowing costs, withholding future awards, wholly or in part suspending the grant, and possible termination.

The background section of the same notice adds that "AI tools may be appropriate to assist in application preparation for limited aspects or in specific circumstances". The notice also limits each Principal Investigator to six applications per calendar year and says it "applies to all activity codes except T activity codes and R13 Conference Grant Applications". It does not discuss fellowships separately.

Checklist before you upload the candidate section

1. The four headings match FORMS-I exactly, in order.
2. The attachment fits in 3 pages, or the limit in your funding opportunity if it states a different one.
3. No grades or course list appear in your biosketch or candidate section.
4. Preparedness expands on the biosketch instead of repeating it.
5. The self-assessment has two to four strengths and two to four development areas.
6. Every development area appears, by the same name, in Training Activities and Timelines with a year.
7. Scientific Perspective names an open question larger than your aims.
8. Your sponsor's section E and your referees have your final development-area list.
9. You have three to five referees, none of them your sponsor or co-sponsor.
10. You are using FORMS-I forms and the instructions for your target due date.

Questions about the F31 candidate statement

How long is the Candidate's Goals, Preparedness, and Potential section?

3 pages, per NIH's page-limit table for all fellowship applications, unless your funding opportunity specifies a different limit.

Can I mention my GPA?

Not in the biosketch. NIH's changes page says of the candidate biosketch: "Grades are no longer required or allowed." The candidate-section instructions do not ask for grades either; our recommendation is to leave them out.

Does the F30 use the same section?

Yes. The page-limit table covers "F05, F30, F31, F32, F33, F37, F38, F99/K00", and the revised review criteria "apply to the following activity codes: F30, F31, F32, F33, F99/K00."

Get a free review of your F31 candidate statement

Get a free Quick Review of your F31 candidate statement against GradPilot's general PhD research dossier rubric, the closest match to this section. It reads whether each research experience shows the problem, what you did, a decision and a result, which work was yours, and whether your record reaches the problem you want to work on next. For the training logic, use the PhD research proposal and statement rubric; for the Scientific Perspective section on its own, the Research Direction Test. Applying for other awards too? See the scholarship and fellowship essay review.

More fellowship-application guides:

• F31 Specific Aims example: the one-page aims for the same 2025 form, built as a training project.
• GRFP, NDSEG and Hertz in one season: which evidence transfers between three other STEM fellowships.
• Research statement vs SOP vs research proposal: what each research document is for.
• Stacking PhD funding awards: how an external fellowship interacts with university support.

Sources

Retrieved October 29, 2026, except where noted. grants.nih.gov returned a bot challenge to direct downloads; each NIH page was read through a text reader.

• NIH, Changes to Fellowship Applications (due dates on or after January 25, 2025): section renames, removed sections, grades rule, sponsor statements.
• NIH, Changes to the Fellowship Review Criteria: three criteria, criterion wording, activity codes.
• NIH, Candidate Guidance: candidate vs applicant, FORMS-I requirement.
• NIH, Fellowship Instructions, Forms Version I (released December 2025), F.430 PHS Fellowship Supplemental Form: the four headings, self-assessment, scientific perspective, training activities, sponsor section E, authorship sentence.
• NIH, Fellowship Instructions, Forms Version H (archived; released August 5, 2023): the old headings and the grades instruction.
• NIH, Page Limits: fellowship page limits.
• NIH, Standard Due Dates: F series dates.
• NIH, Reference Letters and Instructions for Fellowship Candidate Referees (listed as updated November 2024): referee count and what referees are asked.
• NIH, NOT-OD-25-132, Supporting Fairness and Originality in NIH Research Applications: AI policy, application limit, effective date.