The authors are careful to define what a funding pitch actually is, because the term is often confused with the familiar elevator pitch. Both formats demand brevity and precision, but funding pitches occupy a specific niche: they complement an already-submitted written proposal and are delivered during a formal review procedure. Their purpose is not to summarize the proposal but to convince reviewers of two things at once — that the project is relevant, scientifically sound, and feasible, and that the applicant is genuinely suited to carry it out. Crucially, the authors argue, a funding pitch is not simply a condensed version of a standard conference talk. It requires applicants to identify the most important elements of their proposal, present well-supported arguments, and make the relevance of the research immediately clear, while also laying a strong foundation for the critical discussion that follows.

To illustrate the underlying logic of pitching, the authors reach back to one of the most famous demonstrations in industrial history. In the mid-nineteenth century, elevators were widely regarded as death traps, and public distrust threatened the entire industry. At the 1854 World’s Fair in New York, inventor Elisha Otis built a visible elevator shaft before a live audience, climbed onto the platform, and ordered his assistant to cut the supporting rope. As the platform dropped and panic spread, the safety brakes engaged and brought it to a halt. Otis reportedly announced, “All safe, gentlemen. All safe.” The demonstration revolutionized public perception of elevators, and the company he founded recently marked its 170th anniversary. The lesson, the authors write, is that an effective pitch starts from a relevant problem, makes clear why it matters, and demonstrates convincingly how the proposed solution addresses it.

The first of the ten rules concerns the audience itself. Funding pitches are prepared for the review panel, not for the applicant, and the authors urge presenters to analyze that panel along four dimensions: who the reviewers are, what their level of expertise is, how they feel about the applicant and the topic, and what they are trying to achieve. Panels typically mix basic and clinical scientists, and even highly qualified reviewers may not know the fine details of a specific method or subfield. The goal, the authors stress, is not to oversimplify the science but to give every reviewer the information needed to follow and evaluate the arguments. When reviewer names are public, institutional websites, publication records, and professional profiles can reveal scientific interests and the kinds of questions panel members tend to raise. When review is blinded, the authors recommend preparing for a heterogeneous panel and asking colleagues from both inside and outside the field to challenge the pitch with questions.

Rule two addresses the heart of the message. The authors are blunt about a common misconception: the message of a funding pitch is never “please support my project with your funding” — that is the goal, not the message. Instead, they identify three key messages that every effective pitch must deliver: the problem is relevant and needs to be solved, the proposed solution is feasible and will make an impact, and the applicant is well qualified to carry out the project. Beyond these three, they recommend distilling a single take-home message, a concise statement summarizing the central idea of the project and its expected impact, that the panel should still remember after the room empties.

Rules three and four turn to content. Applicants must reduce the complexity of their project to its core and answer the question every panel silently asks: why should we care? The authors advise defining the scientific problem as precisely as possible — its underlying cause, who or what is affected, the barriers that exist, and above all why it matters now — before presenting the full solution strategy, which may span in vitro, in vivo, and in silico experiments, clinical data, patient cohorts, or novel technologies. To gather persuasive arguments, they suggest the FINER criteria from research methodology, which test whether a project is feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant. Arguments fall into three categories: project-related arguments about feasibility, impact, and knowledge gaps; solution-related arguments highlighting preliminary data, emerging technologies, and synergies; and qualification-related arguments establishing the applicant’s credibility through background, methodological expertise, and motivation. The emphasis should shift with the funding call — early-career programs weigh the applicant more heavily, while large collaborative proposals demand sharper focus on feasibility, innovation, and cooperation.

Structure is the subject of rule five, and here the authors warn against a trap many scientists fall into unconsciously: copying the introduction-methods-results-discussion sequence of a scientific paper. In a funding pitch, that paper-like structure fails to engage the panel, particularly because reviewers already have the written proposal in hand. As an alternative, they invoke the “Speech Structure Building” concept, which treats the talk as an architectural tour. The presenter enters the basement with a strong opening and the problem, moves through the core rooms presenting the solution and the strongest arguments, and finishes on the rooftop with a concise summary and key message before closing the loop back to the opening statement. Time should not be distributed evenly; background information stays brief, and most of the clock is reserved for the approach, the strongest evidence, and the aspects most relevant to the funding decision. Ruthless editing follows: extended background, complete methodological explanations, budget specifics, and unrelated context all get cut, because overloaded pitches tempt speakers to rush and lose their audience.

The remaining rules cover visuals, discussion, rehearsal, and delivery. On slides, the authors urge presenters to follow established principles of scientific figure design, avoid copying overly complex figures from publications or the proposal, and ensure that every visual element serves the message — talk about what you show, and show what you talk about. The discussion after the pitch is treated as an integral part of the evaluation, deserving equal preparation: anticipate questions by rereading the proposal from the panel’s perspective, prepare backup slides, and when stumped, avoid speculation by applying an “offer and refer” principle — share what you know, point to relevant literature or a knowledgeable colleague, and offer follow-up if the procedure allows. Critical comments should be acknowledged directly, addressed with data or contingency plans, and never met defensively. Rehearsal, meanwhile, should involve colleagues from inside and outside the field, at least one run-through under realistic conditions, and a simple diagnostic: after the test pitch, ask the audience to state the takeaway in one sentence. If it does not match the intended message, revise.

The final rules concern the presenter’s own state and performance. The authors recommend reviewing every logistical instruction in advance — timing, slide formats, technical setup, whether backup slides are permitted — and familiarizing oneself with the setting, whether a lectern, a free-standing stage, or an online platform with tested camera and microphone. Nervousness, they note, is a natural response to an important evaluation situation, and rehearsal, light exercise, and breathing techniques can reduce unnecessary stress. In delivery, the goal is not performance but clear, confident, credible communication: vary speed, volume, and pitch to emphasize key statements; use intentional pauses; keep hands visible and gestures purposeful; maintain eye contact with the panel rather than the screen; and deploy humor only sparingly and appropriately. Above all, they conclude, the argumentation, visuals, voice, and body language must cohere into a single message. For researchers facing the growing number of funding processes that include an oral stage, the ten rules offer something rarer than charisma — a repeatable, evidence-informed checklist for turning five minutes at a podium into a funded scientific career.

Subject of Research: Guidance for preparing and delivering oral funding pitches in competitive grant application review procedures

Article Title: Ten simple rules for preparing and delivering effective funding pitches in competitive grant applications

Article References: Göbel, A., & Rachner, T. D. (2026). Ten simple rules for preparing and delivering effective funding pitches in competitive grant applications. PLOS Computational Biology, 22(10), e1014840. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014840

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014840

Keywords: funding pitches, grant applications, science communication, review panels, presentation skills, elevator pitch, PLOS Computational Biology, research funding, scientific presentations, public speaking, career development, peer review