English Editing for DFG Grant Applications: What Reviewers Look For and How to Prepare

The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) is Germany's largest research funding organization and one of the most competitive research funders in Europe. Every year, researchers at German universities and research institutes submit thousands of proposals across DFG's Individual Research Grants program, Priority Programs, Research Training Groups, Collaborative Research Centers, and the Emmy Noether and Heisenberg programs for early and mid-career researchers. The review panels that assess these proposals include international reviewers from leading research institutions in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and beyond. For proposals reviewed by international panels, and for all proposals in disciplines where the working language is English, the English-language quality of the proposal is part of the overall impression it makes before the substantive scientific assessment begins.

This article explains how DFG review works, what reviewers look for in the English quality of a proposal, what specific language patterns in German academic English create problems for international reviewers, and how English editing for DFG grant applications by a native English editor with subject matter expertise fits into the pre-submission workflow.

How DFG Review Works and Why English Quality Matters

DFG proposals are assessed by expert reviewers drawn from the international research community. DFG maintains a network of more than 800 elected review board members across 49 review boards covering the full range of scientific disciplines, from engineering and natural sciences to social sciences and humanities. In addition to these elected reviewers, DFG regularly engages ad hoc reviewers from outside Germany for proposals in fields where international expertise is required. Many of these ad hoc reviewers are based at English-speaking institutions in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, or at international institutions where English is the primary working language of research.

The assessment criteria DFG applies to proposals include the scientific quality and originality of the project, its significance for the research field, the feasibility of the proposed work, and the qualifications of the applicant and their team. None of these criteria explicitly mentions English-language quality. But the way a proposal is written directly affects how reviewers assess each of these criteria. A proposal that communicates its scientific rationale clearly, states its research questions precisely, and describes its methodology without ambiguity gives reviewers more confidence in the scientific quality and feasibility of the project than an equivalent proposal where the same information has to be extracted from unclear or effortful prose.

Reviewers are senior academics who read a significant number of proposals in any given review cycle. They bring to each proposal a set of implicit expectations about what a well-written research proposal looks like. These expectations are shaped by the proposals they see from the best applicants in the field, many of whom write in English as a first language or have received professional editing support before submission. A proposal that reads as clearly and confidently as the best proposals a reviewer sees is assessed more favorably at every criterion than an equivalent proposal that requires the reviewer to work to understand what is being proposed.

What International Reviewers Notice About English Quality

International reviewers reading DFG proposals in English are not formally tasked with assessing English-language quality. But they notice language quality in ways that affect their substantive assessment of the proposal, even when they are not consciously aware of making that connection. Research on grant peer review consistently shows that proposals that are easier to read receive more favorable assessments of their scientific quality than proposals with equivalent scientific content that are harder to read. The reviewer's effort at the language level reduces their available attention for the scientific content, and this reduction in attention produces lower confidence in the research.

The abstract and the first impression

The abstract is the first thing a DFG reviewer reads and the basis on which their initial impression of the proposal is formed. DFG proposals require a structured summary that states the research question, the methodology, and the expected results and significance within a defined word limit. The abstract must communicate all of this information clearly in the available space. A reviewer who reads an abstract and understands immediately what the project proposes, why it is significant, and how it will be carried out enters the full proposal with a positive expectation. A reviewer who reads the abstract and is uncertain what the project is actually proposing, or who has to read the abstract twice to extract its meaning, enters the full proposal with a lower baseline confidence in the project.

German academic writing tends toward abstracts that begin with background context and arrive at the research question after several sentences of framing. English proposal abstracts, particularly for international review audiences, are more effective when they lead with the research question or hypothesis in the first sentence and follow with the methodological approach, the expected results, and the significance. This is not a matter of either approach being wrong. It is a matter of calibrating the abstract to the reading expectations of the specific reviewer audience. An international reviewer accustomed to English-language proposal conventions expects to find the research question early. When it appears late, the abstract reads as burying the lead.

The state of research section

The state of research section (Sachstand) is where DFG proposals establish the applicant's command of the field and identify the gap that the proposed research addresses. International reviewers assess this section for both its scientific content and the clarity with which it builds the argument for the proposed project. A state of research section that efficiently identifies what is known, what is not known, and why the proposed project addresses the gap in a way that no existing work has achieved gives reviewers a strong foundation for assessing the project's significance. A state of research section that surveys the literature extensively but is unclear about what gap the project is addressing, or that embeds the argument for the project inside complex prose that requires significant reader effort to follow, makes the reviewer's job harder and reduces their confidence in the project's originality.

The objectives and work program

The objectives and work program section is where reviewers assess feasibility. They are looking for a clear connection between the stated research objectives and the proposed methods. They want to understand what the researchers will do, why those specific methods address the research questions, and what the expected outputs are. In German academic writing, the description of a work program tends to be comprehensive and thorough, covering every aspect of the proposed approach in detail. This thoroughness is appropriate and reflects German scholarly values. But when the description of each work package is embedded in long, subordinated prose rather than presented in clear, direct language, the connection between the objective and the method can be obscured. A reviewer who cannot immediately see how the proposed methods address the stated research questions cannot fully assess feasibility, which reduces the proposal's score on that criterion.

Specific German Academic English Patterns That Affect DFG Proposals

The language patterns that affect German academic English in journal manuscripts affect DFG proposals in the same way, but with specific consequences for each proposal section. For a full explanation of these patterns and their structural origins in German grammar, see our article on common English writing errors made by German academic writers. Here, each pattern is addressed specifically in the context of DFG proposal writing.

Long subordinated sentences in proposal prose

German academic writing uses long, multiply subordinated sentences as a stylistic norm. This is stylistically appropriate in German and reflects genuine intellectual precision. But in a DFG proposal read by an international reviewer, long subordinated sentences reduce the speed at which the reviewer can extract the key information from each section. In a state of research section, this slows the reviewer's ability to follow the argument for the project's significance. In a work program section, it makes the connection between objectives and methods harder to see. In an abstract, it prevents the reviewer from forming a clear initial impression of the project.

The practical correction for DFG proposals is to convert long subordinated sentences into shorter constructions that deliver the main point first and follow with qualification. "Although the existing literature has addressed this question from multiple angles, and although several significant contributions have been made in recent years, the specific relationship between X and Y under conditions Z remains insufficiently understood" can become: "The relationship between X and Y under conditions Z remains insufficiently understood, despite significant recent attention to related questions." The information is the same. The second version is easier to read and makes the gap statement immediately clear.

Nominalization in the description of methods and objectives

German academic prose relies heavily on nominalization, turning verbs into abstract nouns. In a DFG proposal work program, this produces descriptions of planned activities that are formal and comprehensive but indirect. "The undertaking of a systematic analysis of the collected data through the application of the statistical methods described in the preceding section" can become "We will systematically analyze the collected data using the statistical methods described above." The second version is shorter, more direct, and makes it immediately clear who will do what. In a feasibility assessment, directness and clarity about what the researchers will actually do is more persuasive than formal comprehensiveness about the analysis activities to be undertaken.

Passive voice and the presentation of the applicant's contribution

German academic writing has a strong passive voice preference that reflects cultural norms of scientific objectivity. In a DFG proposal, this can produce a work program where the researchers are largely absent from the description of their own planned work. "The data will be collected," "the samples will be analyzed," "the results will be interpreted" are passive constructions that remove the applicant from the activity. An international reviewer reading a work program that uses systematic passive voice may have difficulty assessing whether the applicant has a specific and detailed plan for conducting the work or is describing the work at a level of abstraction that lacks the specificity a feasibility assessment requires. Active voice, "We will collect the data," "We will analyze the samples," "We will interpret the results in the context of," attributes the work directly to the applicant and makes the specificity of the plan more visible.

False cognates in technical and methodological language

False cognates between German and English produce subtle but consequential errors in DFG proposals. "Aktuell" used as "actual" changes a statement about current knowledge into a statement about factual knowledge. "Eventuell" used as "eventual" changes a statement about possible outcomes into a statement about future outcomes. "Realisieren" used as "realize" changes a statement about implementing a method into a statement about understanding it. Each of these errors is invisible to a German writer producing the text and immediately visible to an international reviewer reading it. In a proposal section where precise language about what is known, what is possible, and what will be implemented matters for the reviewer's assessment of scientific quality and feasibility, a single false cognate in a critical sentence can introduce genuine ambiguity about what the applicant is claiming or proposing. For a full list of German-English false cognates to check in your proposal, see our article on common English writing errors made by German academic writers.

Formality and the statement of significance

German academic proposals tend toward modesty in stating the significance of the proposed project. German scholarly norms discourage overstating a project's importance or making claims about its impact that cannot be directly demonstrated by the proposed work. This modesty is appropriate and reflects genuine intellectual honesty. But English proposal writing, particularly for international audiences, expects a clear and confident statement of why the project matters and what it will contribute to the field. A proposal that describes the project as "exploring," "investigating," or "examining" a question reads differently to an international reviewer than one that states the project "will establish," "will demonstrate," or "will provide the first systematic evidence for." The modesty of the first framing can read as uncertainty about whether the project will succeed. The directness of the second framing reads as confidence in the research design and the expected outcomes. Both framings involve genuine intellectual commitments about what the project will do. The second communicates those commitments more persuasively to an international review audience.

DFG Programs Where English Quality Is Most Consequential

English-language quality affects all DFG proposals that are reviewed by international reviewers or written in English, but it is most consequential in specific program contexts.

Individual Research Grants (Sachbeihilfe)

Individual Research Grants are the most common DFG funding instrument and the primary route through which most researchers at German universities apply for DFG funding. These proposals are assessed by DFG review board members and, frequently, by ad hoc international reviewers with expertise in the specific research area. In competitive fields where many strong proposals are submitted in a given cycle, English-language quality is one of the factors that differentiates proposals that score in the top tier from those that score just below the funding threshold. A proposal that is slightly less clear in its statement of the research question, slightly less precise in its description of the methodology, or slightly more effortful to read than competing proposals in the same review cycle faces a systematic disadvantage at the margin where funding decisions are made.

Emmy Noether Program

The Emmy Noether Program supports early-career researchers aiming to lead their own independent research group. It is one of the most competitive DFG programs relative to the number of applicants, and its proposals are assessed by expert reviewers who evaluate both the scientific quality of the proposed project and the qualification of the applicant to lead an independent research group. The Emmy Noether proposal requires a detailed research program, a curriculum vitae that demonstrates the applicant's research trajectory, and a description of the proposed independent research group. The English quality of the research program component is assessed alongside its scientific content, and the overall professionalism of the proposal document contributes to the reviewer's assessment of the applicant's readiness to lead an independent group. For further context on how DFG career-development programs fit into the wider German academic career path, see our article on the German academic career path.

Research Training Groups (Graduiertenkollegs)

Research Training Groups are DFG's primary instrument for funding structured doctoral training programs. Proposals for new Research Training Groups and renewals of existing ones are assessed by international review committees that evaluate both the scientific coherence of the training program and the quality of the participating researchers' English-language proposals for their individual subprojects. A Research Training Group proposal involves multiple contributing researchers, each of whom produces an English description of their subproject. The overall quality of the proposal depends on the English quality of every contributing component. Inconsistency in English quality across subprojects signals to reviewers that the consortium has not coordinated its submission process to the standard of the most competitive proposals in the program.

Collaborative Research Centers (Sonderforschungsbereiche)

Collaborative Research Centers are DFG's largest and most prestigious funding instrument, supporting long-term collaborative research programs across multiple subprojects and participating institutions. CRC proposals involve dozens of researchers, multiple institutional partners, and subproject descriptions that collectively run to hundreds of pages. The English quality of a CRC proposal is a coordination and quality assurance challenge as well as an individual writing challenge. A CRC proposal where some subproject descriptions read to a high professional English standard and others carry the language patterns described in this article creates an uneven impression with the review committee. Professional editing of all subproject components before the final proposal is assembled ensures consistent English quality across the full submission.

International collaboration proposals

DFG funds a range of international collaboration programs, including joint proposals with partner organizations in France (ANR-DFG), the United States (NSF-DFG), Japan (JSPS-DFG), and other countries. These proposals are often jointly reviewed by panels that include reviewers from both countries, sometimes writing their assessments in English regardless of their first language. For joint proposals submitted in English, the English-language quality of the DFG component is assessed alongside the English quality of the international partner component. An international reviewer comparing the two components notices immediately if the DFG component reads at a different language quality level than the partner institution's component. For joint proposals, professional editing before submission ensures the DFG partner's contribution reads to the same standard as contributions from partner institutions in English-speaking countries.

The Pre-Submission Workflow for DFG Proposals

Professional editing fits at a specific point in the DFG proposal preparation process. It is not a first-draft tool and it is not a substitute for the scientific development of the proposal. It is a final-stage language review that ensures the scientific content developed by the research team is presented in English that meets the language quality expectations of the international review panel assessing it.

When to submit for editing

The right point for professional editing is when the scientific content of the proposal is complete and internally reviewed by the research team, but before the final formatting, cross-referencing, and administrative completion of the submission. Editing should be completed before the research team reviews the final version for internal consistency, because the edited version may require minor structural adjustments that are easier to review in the context of the complete final document.

DFG submission deadlines are fixed and non-negotiable. The editing workflow needs to be planned into the proposal preparation timeline in advance rather than treated as a last-minute step. For a proposal with a 50-page research program, allow at least five to seven working days for editing at the standard turnaround option, or use a shorter turnaround option if the timeline is tighter. For Collaborative Research Center proposals with multiple subproject components, allow additional time for the editing of each component and the assembly of the edited components into the final document.

What to prepare before submitting for editing

The following steps make the editing process more effective and the edited document more consistent. Complete the full scientific content of the proposal before submitting for editing. Do not submit a partially written proposal expecting the editor to fill gaps or restructure incomplete sections. Provide the editor with the target journal or DFG program name and, where relevant, the names of specific review board members or international partner organizations, so the editor understands the reviewer audience. Specify whether you need American English or British English conventions applied throughout. Note any technical terms, project-specific terminology, or defined abbreviations that must remain consistent throughout the document. If your institution has a specific house style for DFG proposals, share the relevant guidelines with the editor before the document is submitted.

Reviewing the edited document

All corrections from Editor World are returned in Track Changes in Microsoft Word. This means you can review, accept, or reject each individual change before the document is finalized and submitted. Review all Track Changes before accepting them. Pay particular attention to changes in sentence structure, because the editor may have restructured long subordinated sentences into shorter constructions, and you need to verify that the restructuring preserves the precise scientific meaning of the original. Pay particular attention to any changes to defined technical terms or project-specific terminology, because editors apply general English conventions to vocabulary that may have specific meanings in your field or in your proposal's theoretical framework. Accept all changes that improve the English quality without affecting the scientific meaning. Reject or modify any changes where the restructuring has altered a precision of meaning that the original intended to convey. This review process is your final check before submission and ensures the submitted document is entirely your scientific work, presented in the clearest possible English.

Does DFG Permit Professional English Editing of Proposals?

DFG does not prohibit professional language editing of proposals. The research content of a DFG proposal must be the applicant's own intellectual work, and professional editing addresses language and presentation rather than scientific content. A professional editor corrects grammar, sentence structure, clarity, register, vocabulary precision, and consistency of terminology throughout the proposal document without altering the research questions, the theoretical framework, the methodological design, or the interpretation of expected results. All corrections are returned in Track Changes so the applicant can verify that the scientific content remains unchanged before submission.

If you are uncertain about your institution's specific policies on the use of language editing services for grant proposals, consult your institution's research office. Many German universities explicitly support the use of professional language editing for DFG proposals and provide guidance on acknowledged editing services. For proposals submitted to international funding bodies alongside DFG, check the partner organization's policies separately, as these may vary by program and country.

Editor World's Academic Editing Service for DFG Applicants

Editor World's academic editing service connects DFG applicants with native English editors whose disciplinary background matches their research field. You select your editor before submitting. Browse editor profiles at editorworld.com/editors by academic discipline, credentials, and verified client ratings from previous researchers in your field. Message any editor directly before submitting to discuss your proposal, the DFG program you are applying to, the international reviewer audience, and any specific language concerns you want the editor to address. Request a free sample edit of your abstract and state of research introduction before committing to the full proposal.

All editing is returned in Track Changes in Microsoft Word. British English is available for proposals submitted to European review panels or for joint proposals with UK partner institutions. American English is applied when specified for proposals targeting US partner funding bodies or reviewer panels with predominantly American composition. Turnaround options range from same-day options (2-hour, 4-hour, and 8-hour) for urgent pre-submission deadlines to standard multi-day turnarounds for longer documents. A certificate of editing is available as an optional add-on, confirming that the proposal was reviewed by a qualified native English speaker with no AI tools used at any stage, which some funding bodies and institutional research offices require as documentation of the editing process.

For German researchers preparing journal manuscripts alongside their DFG proposals, our journal article editing service provides the same native English expertise applied to research manuscripts targeting SCI, SSCI, and Scopus-indexed journals. For guidance on the specific English writing patterns that affect German academic manuscripts and proposals, see our article on common English writing errors made by German academic writers.

Frequently Asked Questions

Content reviewed by the Editor World editorial team. Editor World was founded in 2010, has been BBB A+ accredited since 2010, has edited over 140 million words for more than 8,000 clients in over 65 countries, and is recommended by the Boston University Economics Department, the University of San Diego, the University of Michigan, UCLA, the University of Missouri, and other institutions. Multiple Gold and Bronze Stevie Award winner. 5.0 / 5 Google Reviews and 5.0 / 5 Facebook Reviews. 4.9 / 5 average editor rating. Less than 5% of applicants are accepted as editors. Native English editors from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. No AI tools are used at any stage. Information about DFG programs and review processes is based on publicly available DFG documentation and is provided for informational purposes. Researchers should consult their institution's research office and the current DFG program guidelines for guidance specific to their proposal. Page last reviewed November 2026.