What Reviewers Look For in the NDSEG Fellowship — Research Proposal
This rubric looks at whether your proposal presents a connected research case: a named DoD research-area connection, a bounded problem and objective, a workable approach, and a clear contribution. It also checks whether readers can follow how your methods produce evidence, how you will handle scope or uncertainty, and whether redaction preserves the scientific details needed to understand the project.
NDSEG Fellowship — Research Proposal review
Free Quick Review for feedback. Full Review adds the 6 rubric scores and revision suggestions — first one $5.
2 free Quick Reviews each day · $50 for 10 Full Reviews
What We Check
Whether the proposal names a DoD research area and states a visible scientific connection between that area and the proposed work.
Whether the proposal defines a bounded research problem and a question, hypothesis, design objective, theorem, model, comparison, or exploratory aim that can guide the work.
Whether each central research step states what will be done or reasoned, what evidence or output it produces, and how that evidence bears on the objective.
Whether the proposed work has visible resources, sequence, scope boundaries, completion conditions, and responses to uncertainty appropriate to graduate research.
Whether expected findings or outputs are tied to a bounded scientific contribution and to a defense-relevant research use or implication.
Whether the redacted proposal preserves a traceable line from problem to objective, approach, evidence, feasibility, and contribution without depending on named people or institutions.
Mistakes We Flag
- Naming defense relevance without explaining the research connection
- Listing a DoD area, service, strategy, or military need is not enough on its own. Explain how your problem, method, evidence, output, or capability connects scientifically to the named research area.
- Describing an important field but no specific research question
- Background importance does not tell readers what remains unknown, untested, unexplained, or unbuilt. State the gap and the question, objective, comparison, model, theorem, or exploratory aim that follows from it.
- Listing methods without explaining what they will show
- Readers need to see what each central method is for, what evidence or output it will produce, and how you will interpret that result in relation to your objective.
- Assuming the project will work without addressing boundaries or uncertainty
- If a visible risk or failure point exists, explain what would prompt a change, limitation, alternative route, or narrower question. Also make clear how resources will be used and how stages relate to one another.
- Redacting away the details that make the proposal understandable
- Remove applicant-linked names and affiliations, but retain the resource function, planned research action, responsibility, methods, decisions, and evidence types. A reader should still be able to trace the project from problem through contribution.
How this rubric reads your essay
- Built from published reader guidance — the sources are listed below.
- Scored per section against defined criteria, not general impressions.
- Calibrated for consistent scoring, so a better draft shows up in the score.
References
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need to use a hypothesis?
No. Your proposal can use a question, hypothesis, design objective, theorem, model, comparison, or exploratory aim, as long as it gives the work a clear direction.
Do I need preliminary results, a named advisor, or a named laboratory?
No. These are optional. The proposal should instead make its research steps, planned use of resources, scope, completion conditions, and handling of uncertainty understandable from the visible text.
How should I show defense relevance?
Name a DoD research area and include a sentence that connects your proposed problem, objective, approach, output, or scientific capability to that area. Do not rely only on a strategy title, service name, document number, or statement that the topic is important to defense.
What should I redact?
Do not leave a person, university, institution, employer, company, laboratory, collaborator, or exact affiliation tied to you or your research setting. Generalize the identifier while keeping the scientific context and your planned role clear.
Get AI feedback on your essay with a free Quick Review. A Full Review adds the 6 rubric scores and revision suggestions — first one $5. Follow your program’s current writing instructions and assistance policies.
See how scholarship essay review worksReview Your Essay Free