Bearings BetaFunding & opportunities · North West UKGet email alerts

Guides › Research funding

Winning research grants: UKRI, Future Leaders, Horizon Europe, ERC and NIHR

UKRI's real odds by council, the 1 to 6 scale reviewers use, word limits, Horizon Europe and ERC thresholds, and the five failures that lose marks everywhere.

ResearchersResearch-led founders25 min readChecked 18 October 2026
On this page
  1. The odds, from the funders' own tables
  2. How UKRI scores: one mark from 1 to 6 on five criteria
    1. The five core criteria are the marking scheme
    2. What happens after you submit, by council
    3. Word limits by council, at October 2026
    4. Impact has no section of its own
  3. Future Leaders Fellowships: prove the fellowship, not just the project
  4. Horizon Europe: the threshold is not the target
    1. What evaluators write down
  5. ERC: Excellence only, decided first on five pages
    1. The ERC's own list of why proposals fail
  6. NIHR: patients, the NHS and the cheapest credible design
  7. Writing it: what scores, section by section
    1. Page one in one minute
    2. The five failures, and the fix for each
    3. A skeleton for Vision and Approach
    4. Capability: one R4RI for the whole team
    5. Resources: justify the work, not the prices
    6. Ethics and RRI in 500 words
    7. Project partner letters: one each, two sides, nothing extra
    8. A mock panel before you submit
  8. Winning proposals you can read, and what they do
  9. Pitfalls
  10. Checklist
  11. Questions
    1. What is the success rate for UKRI research grants?
    2. How are UKRI applications scored?
    3. How long can a UKRI application be?
    4. What score do you need to win a Horizon Europe grant?
    5. How does ERC evaluation work?
    6. Is a Future Leaders Fellowship round open?
    7. Does UKRI still want a Pathways to Impact statement?
    8. Can I use AI to write my application?
  12. Sources

Research funders publish their scoring scales, their reviewer instructions and, since July 2026, their award rates by council. This guide puts them together: the odds, how UKRI reviewers score, each council's word limits, what Future Leaders, Horizon Europe, ERC and NIHR panels add, and what to write so each criterion scores.

  • UKRI funded 18.7% of applications in 2025-26 (3,567 of 19,082), down from 27.0% in 2023-24; UKRI blames budget timing, not quality. North West applicants: 18.1%.
  • Reviewers give one score from 1 to 6, written under the five core criteria as subheadings. Write to the criterion wording.
  • Five faults lose marks everywhere: an unclear question, an incremental idea, over-ambition, weak risk handling, resources that do not match the work.
  • Impact has no section of its own: it goes in Vision, Approach and Resources.
  • Horizon Europe's threshold is 10 of 15 but funding needs about 14. ERC Step 1 is decided on a five-page synopsis and a four-page CV.

The odds, from the funders' own tables

  • 18.7% UKRI award rate by number, 2025-26 (3,567 awards from 19,082 applications assessed)1
  • 27.0% the same rate in 2023-24 (7,606 of 28,177)1
  • 18.1% award rate for North West applicants, 2025-262
  • 16.3% EPSRC standard research grants at panel, 2025-26 (66 of 404)3
  • 12% ERC Starting Grants 2025 (478 of 3,928)5
  • 16.4% Horizon Europe 2021 to 2024, as reported (14,592 of 88,803 eligible proposals)6

UKRI's investments and outputs data (16 July 2026) gives award rates by council, covering everything each decided (grants, fellowships, training), not responsive mode alone.12

Council 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2025-26 awards / applications
AHRC 24.3% 23.1% 18.8% 286 / 1,522
BBSRC 32.8% 27.8% 14.4% 263 / 1,832
EPSRC 28.0% 20.8% 14.5% 401 / 2,772
ESRC 34.5% 22.3% 20.3% 263 / 1,293
MRC 32.6% 18.9% 12.4% 307 / 2,475
NERC 22.1% 23.9% 16.3% 139 / 853
STFC 64.7% 29.8% 20.6% 152 / 738
Innovate UK 22.5% 16.4% 20.0% 1,121 / 5,603
All UKRI fellowships 26.9% 23.8% 18.0% 412 / 2,290
UKRI total 27.0% 20.7% 18.7% 3,567 / 19,082

The 2025-26 rates side by side, from the same tables:12

UKRI award rate by council, 2025-26
MRC12.4%
BBSRC14.4%
EPSRC14.5%
NERC16.3%
North West applicants18.1%all councils
UKRI total18.7%
AHRC18.8%
Innovate UK20.0%
ESRC20.3%
STFC20.6%
EPSRC, at panel 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26
Standard research grants 21.3% (178 of 835) 22.0% (117 of 532) 16.3% (66 of 404)
New Investigator Awards 49.4% (89 of 180) 25.4% (51 of 201) 30.3% (61 of 201)
Fellowships, outline to award 17.3% (26 of 150) 14.2% (36 of 254) 10.6% (47 of 442)

Our computation from EPSRC's outcomes file (updated 5 October 2026): funded as a share of all funded and unfunded panel decisions, by panel year.3

Route Rate Source and date
UKRI Future Leaders Fellowships 16% across rounds 1 to 7; 17% in round 7; 18% in round 8 (tentative, collated November 2024). Round 8: 23% for women, 12% for men UKRI, February 20264
ERC Starting Grants 2025 About 12%: 478 grants from 3,928 applications, €761 million; UKRO reports 60 hosted in the UK, second to Germany's 99 UKRO, 4 September 2025; ERC5
Horizon Europe 2021 to 2024 16.4% of 88,803 eligible proposals; 54% passed the thresholds but only about 30% of those were funded "due to a lack of funds" Commission monitoring report, as circulated by the Council, 20256
CBE JU 2024 call (one Horizon Europe partnership) 30 funded from 298 submitted, about 10%; 105 below threshold; 119 above threshold but unfunded; 35 reserve list CBE JU, April 20257
NIHR programmes No official success-rate table could be reached in October 2026; figures quoted elsewhere are not confirmed by NIHR see the NIHR section

Plan for one in five at research councils, nearer one in eight at MRC, BBSRC and EPSRC if 2025-26 conditions persist (our planning figure, not UKRI's). The calculator gives the chance of at least one award across several submissions.

North West applicants' UKRI award rate was 28.3% (2023-24), 21.1% (2024-25) and 18.1% (2025-26), close to England's 26.2%, 20.1% and 18.5%. Committed awards fell from £711m to £450m.2 The N8 equipment database (Lancaster, Liverpool and Manchester are members) helps with the Facilities section; NIHR ARC North West Coast lists internships, studentships and fellowships.35

Decisions take six to nine months. Start early: the ERC's advice is to rewrite many times and "not work right up to the deadline".25

How UKRI scores: one mark from 1 to 6 on five criteria

Every UKRI reviewer gives one overall score.8

Score UKRI's descriptor8
6 Exceptional "Addresses all assessment criteria at an exceptional level."
5 Excellent Very high quality; most criteria met at an excellent level; "very minor weaknesses"
4 Very good Most criteria met to a high level; "minor weaknesses"
3 Good Most criteria met to an acceptable level "but not across all aspects"; weaknesses
2 Weak "not sufficiently competitive"; significant weaknesses
1 Poor Flawed or unsuitable for funding

With one in five funded, you need mostly 5s and 6s (our inference; UKRI publishes no cut-off). AHRC's Catalyst sift shows it: an average of 4.5 or below across three reviews sifts out unless two of them average 5.5 or more.12 Panels then rank or tier: tier 1 funded; tier 2 "highly competitive", chosen within budget by "banding, randomised, or strategic allocation"; tier 3 not competitive.11

The five core criteria are the marking scheme

Every applicant-led opportunity uses the same five sections; councils add extras and set the lengths.36 Reviewers mark against this wording:10

Section The question What reviewers look for (UKRI's words)10
Vision "What are you hoping to achieve with your proposed work?" "of excellent quality and importance within or beyond the field(s) or area(s)"; "timely given current trends, context and needs"; impact on "world-leading research, society, the economy or the environment"
Approach "How are you going to deliver your proposed work?" "effective and appropriate to achieve your objectives"; "feasible, and comprehensively identifies any risks to delivery and how they will be managed"; "a clear and transparent methodology"; previous work "built upon and progressed"; "maximise translation of outputs into outcomes and impacts"
Applicant and team capability to deliver Why you are the right individual or team experience "appropriate to career stage"; "the right balance of skills and expertise"; "appropriate leadership and management skills"; "a positive research environment and wider community"
Ethics and responsible research and innovation (RRI) What the ethical or RRI issues are and how you will manage them identify and evaluate them; minimise "research misuse or accidental harm"; manage them "throughout the lifecycle of the project"; if none, explain why
Resources and cost justification What you need and what it costs "comprehensive, appropriate, and justified"; "the optimal use of resources"; "maximise potential outcomes and impacts"; "detailed or line-by-line costings are not required"

What the reviewer is told

  • One text box, the assessment areas as subheadings, one overall score.8
  • No journal metrics, H-index or i10-index, and no credit for institutional match funding.8
  • No generative AI on any part of the application.9
  • "not expected to consider anything outside of the documents", and advised not to click links other than references.9 Never put essential evidence behind a link.
  • "raise any concerns in the form of questions for the applicant", in plain English, because panellists "may not be specialists in your field".9

What happens after you submit, by council

Route (value, 80% FEC funded) External review Your response Panel, interview, timing
AHRC Catalyst (£100,000 to £300,000, first significant project) Three reviews; rejected before a third if the first two both score 1 to 3 14 days, 500 words per review Introducers grade; three tiers, partial randomisation in tier two; nine-month target12
AHRC Curiosity (up to £100,000) Expert panel only; no external-review or response stage described None described Three tiers, tier two by "partial randomisation"; six-month target12
ESRC research grants (£350,000 to £1m; closes 4 November 2026) Expert review 14 calendar days, only for "sufficiently supportive" reviews; others "normally rejected at this stage" Panel ranks; score ranges published after decisions; around six months, plus about two months of post-award checks1330
BBSRC standard (up to £2m) "a minimum of two external peer reviews" 14 calendar days, "usually 500 words per review" Three panel members score independently, then consensus and a ranked list; feedback "does not give reasons"; nine-month target14
MRC research grant (no maximum) Shortlisting first, by college-of-experts members, on "ambition of the vision, potential impact of the research, and deliverability"; then expert review 14 days Interview of the project lead and up to two co-leads, usually November and May; start 9 to 18 months after submission15
NERC Pushing the Frontiers (up to £950,000) Expert review, then shortlisting 14 days at shortlisting Moderating panel; nine-month target; uninvited resubmissions refused16
EPSRC standard and New Investigator Award At least three reviewers 14 days at shortlisting Four responsive panels, typically quarterly; six-month target for NIA17
Future Leaders Fellowship At least three, UK and overseas 10 working days; the panel reads it, reviewers do not Sift panel, then an interview of up to one hour920

FEC is full economic cost; councils pay 80%. Institutional caps at October 2026: none at AHRC, BBSRC or NERC (NERC "on a trial basis"); ESRC expects "a limited number" per organisation; FLF hosts are capped.121416134

ESRC changes its schemes from November 2026

ESRC's research and new investigator grants both close on 4 November 2026. Grow (£100,000 to £500,000) and Explore (£300,000 to £2m) launch in November 2026 and Challenge (£2m to £10m) in early 2027, after React and Connect pilots in spring 2026. Their section structures were not published at 18 October 2026.37

Word limits by council, at October 2026

From the pages live on 18 October 2026; limits change between rounds, so the live page wins.

Route Vision Approach Capability (R4RI + additions) Resources
AHRC Curiosity and Catalyst (September 2026)12 550 2,200 1,650 (1,150 + 500) 1,000
ESRC research grants round two13 500 2,500 1,500 (1,000 + 500) 1,000
NERC Pushing the Frontiers (October 2026)16 1,100 2,750, Gantt required 1,650 2,500
BBSRC standard (May 2026)14 550 3,300, includes Gantt 1,650 (1,150 + 500) 1,000
MRC research grant (October 2026)15 750 3,300, plus 500 on reproducibility and statistical design 2,000 (1,500 + 500) 1,000
EPSRC standard (November 2023 page, still open)17 One PDF: six A4 sides plus one page of work plan included in the PDF 1,500 (1,000 + 500) 1,000
EPSRC New Investigator Award (August 2026)17 One PDF: up to eight A4 sides including a one-page Gantt included in the PDF 1,650 (1,150 + 500) 1,000

Common to most: Summary 550 words; Ethics and RRI 500; Facilities 250 (BBSRC 500). References count within the section's word limit.36

Templates in Je-S language are out of date

"Case for support", "Justification of Resources", "Pathways to Impact" and "national importance" predate the Funding Service.17 Ask your research office for a Funding Service example before borrowing a colleague's winning bid.

Impact has no section of its own

UKRI dropped Pathways to Impact and the Impact Summary on 1 March 2020.19 Impact is marked inside three sections,10 and FLF reviewers ask whether pathways "are proportionate, timely and credible".9

Where What the criterion asks for What to write
Vision benefits to "world-leading research, society, the economy or the environment"; "timely" named beneficiaries and what changes for them, short and long term
Approach "maximise translation of outputs into outcomes and impacts" engagement and translation as tasks in work packages, with partners and milestones
Resources "maximise potential outcomes and impacts" costed activity: secondments, events, a partner's time
Capability, R4RI module 4 contributions to users, audiences and societal benefit your past impact, with numbers

Impact in only one of the three reads as bolted on. A fundamental project needs credible next users, not a commercialisation plan.

Future Leaders Fellowships: prove the fellowship, not just the project

A Future Leaders Fellowship (FLF) funds a person for four years plus an optional three-year renewal. From Round 10 and the July 2026 reviewers' guidance:209

Item Round 10 (academic applications closed 18 June 2025)
Cost No minimum or maximum; past fellowships ranged from £300,000 to over £2 million
Host Must confirm "an open-ended UK-based independent research or innovation position", increase its share of salary over time and show how protected time is guaranteed; academic hosts are capped (2 to 10 applications each in round 84)
Review At least three UK and overseas reviewers under six headings: Vision and Approach; Applicant capability; Career development; Host organisation support; Ethics and RRI; Resources
Your response 10 working days; the panel reads it, the reviewers do not
Panels A sift panel, then an interview of up to one hour on Zoom with set and variable questions drawn from the reviews, against four criteria: Research and Innovation Excellence; Applicant and their Development; Impact and Strategic Relevance; Research and Innovation Environment and Cost
Rule changes Co-Leads (formerly Co-Investigators) no longer permitted; Visiting Researchers and Specialists "by exception only"; "You must not refer to the amount of time since PhD"
Status Round 10 decisions were due June 2026. No round 11 appears in UKRI's funding finder at 18 October 2026, and published outcomes stop at round 821

Across all four panel criteria, "a key issue will be whether the added value of a fellowship is well demonstrated, as opposed to more standard project grant support".9 Argue it in every section.

How FLF reviewers judge the money

Not whether a flight should cost £200 but whether "all the trips... are justified"; not whether the project should cost £300,000 or £350,000 but whether the total "is warranted by the amount of project outputs"; whether equipment is "the most efficient way to do that piece of work". For each post: "is the amount of work achievable within the timescale for someone with that level of expertise?"9

Before you draft an FLF

Write two columns: what a standard grant would buy; what the fellowship adds (scale, duration, your development, the host's commitment). If the columns match, apply for the grant.

Horizon Europe: the threshold is not the target

The UK has been fully associated since the deal of 7 September 2023, so UK researchers can lead consortia.24 Collaborative proposals are scored on three criteria from the General Annexes:22

Criterion What is scored (General Annexes, abridged)22 Threshold
Excellence objectives "ambitious" and "beyond the state of the art"; "soundness of the proposed methodology", including the gender dimension and open science 3 of 5
Impact "credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme"; the dissemination, exploitation and communication measures 3 of 5 (CBE JU sets 47)
Quality and efficiency of the implementation "quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages"; "capacity and role of each participant" 3 of 5
Total the sum; for Innovation Actions, Impact is weighted 1.5 for ranking only 10 of 15

Scores run 0 to 5 in half points. A 3 "addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present"; a 5 "successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor."23 Two-stage calls score only Excellence and Impact at stage 1, threshold 4 each, with the overall cut "expected normally to be set at 8 or 8.5".22

Passing is not winning: in 2021 to 2024, 54% passed the thresholds and about 30% of those were funded;6 CBE JU's 2024 call shows the same drop.7

Horizon Europe, 2021 to 2024
88,803Eligible proposals
about 48,000Above threshold (54%)our arithmetic from 54%
14,592Funded (16.4%)about 30% of those above threshold
CBE JU 2024 call
298Submitted
184Above threshold9 ineligible, 105 below threshold
65Main list or reserve
30Main listabout 10% of those submitted

The practical target is 14 or more out of 15: no shortcoming an evaluator can name.

What evaluators write down

CBE JU, a Horizon Europe partnership, coded every bullet in the evaluation summary reports (ESRs) of 289 proposals in its 2024 call:7

Rank Weaknesses Shortcomings (lesser defects)
1 Impact: the topic's "expected outcomes" Expected outcomes
2 Excellence: methodology Work plan (structure, tasks, milestones, deliverables)
3 Excellence: ambition beyond the state of the art, and TRLs Risk table and mitigation
4 Excellence: fully or partly out of scope Methodology
5 Implementation: work plan Ambition and TRLs

TRL is technology readiness level. CBE JU's conclusions: "you can't hide a bad idea" (most top weaknesses sit in Excellence) and "Risk & mitigation measures are top 3-4/5 in shortcomings in all types of actions". The 85 near-misses (13.5 to 14.5) had only shortcomings: business model, economic viability, work plan, communication measures, ambition and TRL. One impact-heavy partnership, so generalise with care.7

Map Impact to the topic, line by line

Copy every "expected outcome" from the topic into a table and answer each one.22

Expected outcome (quoted from the topic) | Our result that delivers it | Work package, task | Indicator, target, month | Who uses it after the project
EO1: "..."                                | ...                          | WP3, T3.2           | ... by M30               | named end user or regulator
EO2: "..."                                | ...                          | WP4, T4.1           | ...                      | ...

ERC: Excellence only, decided first on five pages

The European Research Council (ERC) funds individuals through Starting (StG), Consolidator (CoG), Advanced (AdG) and Synergy grants. Excellence is the sole criterion, judged through the project (ground-breaking nature, ambition, feasibility) and the principal investigator; "Since 2024 the evaluation is primarily focused on the research project."25

The two steps, from the same ERC briefing:25

How the ERC evaluates StG, CoG and AdG
  1. Step 1 readingPart B1 only: one-page abstract, 5-page Extended Synopsis, CV and track record up to 4 pages (about ten achievements)
  2. Step 1 resultA retained, up to 44 per panel (more are "A non-invited"); B or C rejected
  3. Step 2 readingadds B2, the 7-page Scientific Proposal; remote specialist reviews; panel meeting
  4. Step 2 interviewremote, for StG, CoG and AdG
  5. DecisionA funded; A not funded (outside budget); B not fundable

References sit outside the page limits. Step 1 panels are broad: the synopsis must carry the ground-breaking claim and the feasibility evidence for a non-specialist.

2026 calls25 PhD awarded Minimum time on the project
Starting Grant 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023 50%
Consolidator Grant 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018 40%
Advanced and Synergy no window 30%

At least 50% of your working time must be in an EU member state or an Associated Country, which includes the UK.25

The ERC's own list of why proposals fail

From an ERC panel member's October 2025 briefing, with the check to run on your draft:25

"Typical reasons for not making it" Your check
"Hypothesis and objectives not sufficiently clear" Can a reader state your hypothesis, and what result would refute it, from page one?
"Incremental in nature, missing the ground-breaking potential" What will be true if you succeed that no current approach can deliver? Say it in the first half page.
"No realisation of risks & challenges, contingency" Each objective has a named risk and a fallback that still yields a result
"Overly ambitious (promising too much) or 'overselling' yourself" Three or four integrated objectives sized to the budget. Cut the "bonus" objective: "usually overly ambitious, vaguely articulated and poorly integrated; often translational"
"For interdisciplinary proposals: expertise missing in one area" Each discipline has a named person with evidence in the CV or team

Myths she rebuts: host fame is not a criterion; success rates are equal across panels, so picking one "strategically" does not help; needing a Nature or Science paper is a "rumour". Resubmissions "have a higher success rate" (no figure).25 A limit of one proposal under evaluation at a time was reported in June 2026, but the 2027 rules were revised after consultation, so check the live work programme.26

The Step 2 interview

Slides on the project, "Don't over explain your CV", know the methods in detail, bring new data, anticipate questions you cannot answer, keep to time, and "practice practice practice".25

NIHR: patients, the NHS and the cheapest credible design

Not re-verified in 2026

NIHR's website refused automated access in October 2026, so this section rests on summaries of NIHR guidance and a published analysis, and gives no success rates. Read the live programme guidance before you write.

NIHR committees weigh importance to patients and the NHS, scientific quality, team and value for money; public members examine patient and public involvement (PPI).

What is examined What NIHR's guidance asks for, as summarised27
How people shaped the application Reviewers "will review how you've involved patients, carers and the public"; "clearly highlight any changes that have been made as a result"
The plan and budget "appropriate and proportionate plans and budget"; costs that "reflect the reality of effective public involvement"
If involvement is not appropriate "a clear justification must be provided"
Public reviewers' test plans that are "appropriate, clear, meaningful and inclusive"

A Southampton analysis of 114 NIHR feedback documents (BMJ Open, 2021; abstract only seen) grouped criticism into seven categories: study structure and quality; team and infrastructure; acceptability to patients and professionals; justification and design; risks and contingencies; outputs; value for money.28 For value for money, state the decision your evidence will inform, who will act on it, and why a cheaper design would not do. Write PPI as a record, not a promise:

You said (who, when)                            | We did                                 | Where in the application
Carers' group, 12 February: visits too frequent | Follow-up cut from six visits to three | Approach, WP2; Resources, travel line
Patient panel, 3 March: outcome measure unclear | Added the measure the panel chose      | Approach, outcomes; plain English summary

Writing it: what scores, section by section

See also guides/grant-questions and, for spin-outs, guides/research-to-company.

Page one in one minute

Peyton Jones and Bundy: assume "one minute or less" of attention, so page one must say what you will do, why it matters, why you will succeed and what it costs. Give drafts to colleagues for ten minutes each; where they are confused, rewrite rather than explain.29 MRC shortlists on "ambition of the vision, potential impact of the research, and deliverability" before any expert reads the methods.15

The five failures, and the fix for each

Peyton Jones and Bundy's reasons for rejection (no definition of "what would constitute success or failure", a "routine application of known techniques", a "wish-list instead of an idea", "too expensive for the probable gain"),29 the ERC's list and CBE JU's data describe the same five faults. The table is our synthesis.

Element Weak Strong
Question "We will explore X" A hypothesis or question plus the result that would count as success or failure
Novelty The next step of your own work; rivals uncited The gap stated against named rival approaches; previous work "built upon and progressed", not repeated
Ambition Many objectives plus a "bonus" translational aim Three or four integrated objectives sized to the time and money
Risk One generic "delays" row Specific technical risks with likelihood, impact, mitigation and a fallback that still delivers
Impact "Results will be disseminated" Named beneficiaries in Vision, engagement tasks in the plan, costs in Resources
Team A list of names; a discipline missing One team R4RI showing complementary skills, each gap closed by a named partner
Resources Lump sums; inflated lead time Each post tied to work packages and expertise level; equipment shown as the most efficient route
Horizon Europe Impact Generic EU benefit A line for every expected outcome in the topic
NIHR PPI "We will consult a PPI group" "You said, we did", a named PPI lead, a realistic budget

What ESRC panels see most

Panels find it "very frustrating" when applicants justify the research at length but give "only a short and inadequate explanation" of how. They "take a very dim view" of padding costs, and reviewers do not welcome "dense blocks of text". ESRC, 7 July 2026.30

A skeleton for Vision and Approach

Reuse the criterion words: a reviewer writing under "Approach: feasible, risks managed" wants to find that sentence.

VISION
1  The question or hypothesis, one sentence; the result that would count as success or failure
2  Why now: the gap against named rival approaches; what has changed ("timely given current trends, context and needs")
3  Objectives: three or four, numbered, each testable
4  Who benefits and how, short and long term (named users, not "stakeholders")

APPROACH
5  What you have already shown, and the next step this project takes (not a repeat)
6  Method for each objective: design, data, analysis; why this method and not the alternatives
7  Work packages, milestones and the Gantt, each tied to an objective
8  Risks: specific, with likelihood, impact, mitigation and fallback
9  Impact pathway as tasks: who is engaged, when, by whom; partners' roles
10 Research environment and facilities, with confirmation of access

Capability: one R4RI for the whole team

The Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) replaces CVs: one for the whole team, in four modules: (1) new ideas, tools, methods or knowledge; (2) developing others; (3) the wider research community; (4) users, audiences and societal benefit. The additional-information field "will not be assessed".18 Reviewers judge "the individual or team as a whole" and count "skills and outputs of all types, not just academic outputs".9 Each module should answer "why this team for this work" (guides/team).

Weak (invented illustration)

I have done a lot of public engagement and my work has influenced policy.

Strong (invented illustration)

I co-designed a six-week oral-history programme with three Liverpool community groups (2024). It reached 410 participants and its findings were cited in the council's 2025 heritage strategy. I now advise the city's culture team on community archiving.

Resources: justify the work, not the prices

UKRI asks you to justify staff, "significant travel for field work or collaboration", equipment over £25,000, unusual consumables, facilities and all Exceptions; "detailed or line-by-line costings are not required".10 Reviewers ask the FLF questions above,9 and unexplained items are where programme managers "may lop costs off".29

Each post:     role, grade, FTE, months; which work packages; why that level of expertise
Travel:        each trip or class of trips; purpose; who; the task it serves
Equipment:     each item over £25,000; why it is the most efficient route; access for others
Partners:      what they contribute, its value, what it replaces in the budget
Impact costs:  events, secondments, materials, each named in the Approach work plan

Ethics and RRI in 500 words

No issues still needs an explanation of why.10 Reviewers also check trusted-research risks (dual use, hostile actors, intellectual property).9 Write it as a table: issue, who is affected, how managed, when reviewed.

Project partner letters: one each, two sides, nothing extra

On MRC's October 2026 opportunities a project partner is "a collaborating organisation in the UK or overseas", and none may employ a member of your core team. Each gives one letter or email of up to two sides of A4 covering "the project partners' commitment to the project", "the value, relevance, and possible benefits of the proposed work, to them" and "any additional value they will bring". Letters from anyone else "will be ignored by us and will not be used in the assessment process". The contribution's value goes in the form. Rules vary: a multi-council call of 14 October 2026 asked for no letters.15

[Partner organisation, address, contact name, role, email]
Re: [Project title], [lead organisation], [funding opportunity]

1 Commitment: what we will provide (staff time, data, samples, access, cash), when, and its value: £[x] in kind, £[y] cash
2 Value to us: the question this answers for our organisation and what we will do with the results
3 Added value: what we bring that the team cannot do alone (facilities, users, a route to adoption)
4 Named contact for the collaboration agreement if the award is made
Signed (electronic signature accepted), date

A mock panel before you submit

Run the funder's process on yourself

  1. Three colleagues, one outside your field, each score the draft 1 to 6 under the five criteria, phrasing every concern as a question: the UKRI reviewer's format.89
  2. A non-specialist reads page one for one minute, then tells you what, why, why you and how much.29
  3. Red-team the five failures.
  4. Answer every question from step 1 in writing: your draft response to reviewers, due within 14 days (10 working days at FLF).369
  5. For Horizon Europe, score each criterion 0 to 5 and list every shortcoming; below 4.5 needs work.23

Winning proposals you can read, and what they do

BUMP, ERC Starting Grant 2015, University of Southampton

Elselijn Kingma's Part B1 for BUMP (Better Understanding the Metaphysics of Pregnancy, panel SH5) is published by the University of Southampton; CORDIS records €1,273,290 from 1 April 2016.32 The ERC publishes no evaluator comments, so read the reasons off the criteria. The synopsis opens with a sentence any panel member can follow ("Every single human is the product of a pregnancy") and the gap in one line ("pregnancy has not been a traditional focus in philosophy"). It names the rival model it attacks (the "foetal container model"), sets three numbered aims and five subprojects, and argues in the ERC's own terms ("High Risk/High Gain", "ground-breaking"). Feasibility rests on papers at named venues and a £6,000 proof-of-concept award that funded four workshops. The PI commits 70% of her time and impact is costed through a part-time knowledge-transfer assistant.32

More published B1s, with a caveat

FFG's list of ERC proposals published by their PIs includes Thomas Emery's 2021 Starting Grant proposal on childcare strategies (SH7; B1 and B2 on Zenodo) and Jill Walker Rettberg's MACHINE VISION Consolidator 2017 proposal (SH5; B1 on Zenodo). FFG says the list includes some unsuccessful proposals unlabelled, and the Zenodo pages do not state the outcome: read them for structure, not as proof.3133 Open Grants (ogrants) lists published proposals across funders with funded status.34

UKRI publishes no filled-in Funding Service application or R4RI.1834 The nearest model answer is a funded application from your research office, read against the criteria table above.

Pitfalls

Pitfall Why it costs Fix
Writing to an old template Je-S headings do not match the five criteria reviewers must use as subheadings8 Draft under the Funding Service questions10
Long justification, short method ESRC: "only a short and inadequate explanation" of how; no "achievable plan of action"30 Approach gets the most words; a method for each objective
Evidence behind a hyperlink Reviewers are advised not to click non-reference links9 Put the evidence in the text or a permitted attachment
Padding the budget ESRC panels "take a very dim view"; unexplained lines get lopped3029 Every post and trip tied to a task
A generic risk table A top 3 to 4 shortcoming in every Horizon Europe action type7 Specific risk, likelihood, impact, mitigation, fallback
Ignoring the topic's expected outcomes CBE JU's number one weakness and shortcoming7 The line-by-line map above
A "bonus" objective ERC: "usually overly ambitious, vaguely articulated and poorly integrated"25 Cut it, or make it a costed work package
Letters from non-partners "will be ignored by us"15 One letter per named partner, two sides
Treating a fellowship as a grant FLF tests "the added value of a fellowship" on all four criteria9 The two-column exercise above
Leaving the reviewer response to chance 14 days (10 working days at FLF), and the panel reads it369 Draft answers from your mock panel's questions
Assuming you are "early career" The tests are funding-history based: EPSRC NIA requires never having led a single award over £175,000 and no more than 12 months' postdoc supervision; BBSRC, no prior award as lead with research-associate costs; MRC, not having led a team or held a grant of three or more years with salary for others1738 Check the live eligibility page before drafting

Checklist

Questions

What is the success rate for UKRI research grants?

18.7% by number in 2025-26 (3,567 of 19,082), after 20.7% in 2024-25 and 27.0% in 2023-24. In 2025-26: AHRC 18.8%, BBSRC 14.4%, EPSRC 14.5%, ESRC 20.3%, MRC 12.4%, NERC 16.3%, STFC 20.6%. UKRI attributes the fall to budget timing.12

How are UKRI applications scored?

Expert reviewers (usually at least two; three at AHRC Catalyst, EPSRC and Future Leaders) each give one score from 6 "Exceptional" to 1 "Poor" against five criteria: Vision, Approach, Capability, Ethics and RRI, Resources. You respond to the reviews; a panel then ranks or tiers.81011

How long can a UKRI application be?

It depends on the call. At October 2026 Approach is 2,200 words at AHRC, 2,500 at ESRC, 2,750 at NERC and 3,300 at BBSRC and MRC; EPSRC uses one PDF of six to eight A4 sides. Capability is 1,500 to 2,000 words, Resources usually 1,000.121314151617

What score do you need to win a Horizon Europe grant?

The threshold is 10 of 15, with 3 of 5 on each criterion, but in 2021 to 2024 only about 30% of above-threshold proposals were funded. Aim for 14 or more.226

How does ERC evaluation work?

Step 1 panels read only Part B1: a five-page Extended Synopsis and a four-page CV. Step 2 adds the seven-page B2, specialist reviews and a remote interview. Excellence is the only criterion.25

Is a Future Leaders Fellowship round open?

Not at 18 October 2026. Round 10 closed to academic applicants on 18 June 2025 with decisions due June 2026, and no round 11 appears in UKRI's funding finder. Published outcomes stop at round 8 (a tentative 18%).20214

Does UKRI still want a Pathways to Impact statement?

No. It went on 1 March 2020. Impact is assessed inside Vision, Approach and Resources.1910

Can I use AI to write my application?

Reviewers may not put your application into generative AI tools. UKRI's policy on generative AI in application and assessment is linked from "How we make decisions"; read it first.911

Sources

  1. UKRI, Statistical publication: UKRI investment and outputs, April 2015 to March 2026, published 16 July 2026. https://www.ukri.org/publications/ukri-investments-and-outputs/statistical-publication-ukri-investment-and-outputs-april-2015-to-march-2026 ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  2. UKRI, investments and outputs data tables 2015 to 2026 (Excel), Tables 2, 2.2 and 3.1, 16 July 2026. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/160726-UKRI-investments-and-outputs-data-2015-2026.xlsx ↩↩↩↩↩

  3. EPSRC funding application outcomes (application-level spreadsheet), published 28 February 2025, updated 5 October 2026. Rates computed for this guide as funded divided by funded plus unfunded panel decisions, grouped by panel-meeting year and opportunity name. https://www.ukri.org/publications/epsrc-funding-application-outcomes/ ↩↩↩

  4. UKRI, Diversity results for UKRI Future Leaders Fellowships, rounds 1 to 8 (PDF), February 2026. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/UKRI-230226-DiversityResultsFutureLeadersFellowshipsRoundsOneToEight.pdf ↩↩↩↩

  5. UKRO, ERC Starting Grant 2025 results, 4 September 2025. https://www.ukro.ac.uk/news/erc-starting-grant-2025-results/ ; ERC, Starting Grants 2025 applications: facts and figures (3,928 submissions). https://erc.europa.eu/news-events/news/starting-grants-2025-applications-facts-and-figures ↩↩

  6. European Commission, Horizon Europe annual monitoring report COM(2025) 298, as circulated in Council document ST-8496-2025. Figures taken from the Council document's summary; the Commission report itself was not opened for this guide. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8496-2025-INIT/en/pdf ↩↩↩↩

  7. Circular Bio-based Europe Joint Undertaking, Lessons learnt from the 2022-24 calls (Dieter Brigitta), 3 April 2025. https://www.cbe.europa.eu/system/files/2025-04/3.5%20Lessons%20learnt%20from%20the%202022-24%20calls%20-%20Dieter%20Brigitta.pdf ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  8. UKRI, How reviewers use the UKRI Funding Service, updated 7 July 2026. https://www.ukri.org/apply-for-funding/how-to-apply/how-reviewers-use-the-ukri-funding-service ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  9. UKRI, Future Leaders Fellowships Reviewers' Guidance v14, July 2026 (PDF). https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/UKRI-100726-FLF-Reviewers-Guidance-V14-July-2026.pdf ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  10. UKRI, Core section questions and how they will be assessed (applicant-led opportunities), updated 24 September 2026. https://www.ukri.org/apply-for-funding/develop-your-application/responsive-mode-opportunities-funding-service-core-application-section-questions-and-assessment/core-section-questions-and-how-they-will-be-assessed/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  11. UKRI, How we make decisions, updated 10 July 2026. https://www.ukri.org/apply-for-funding/how-we-make-decisions/ ↩↩↩

  12. UKRI, AHRC Catalyst Awards: applicant-led mode, published 23 September 2026. https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/ahrc-catalyst-awards-applicant-led-mode/ ; AHRC Curiosity Award: applicant-led mode. https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/ahrc-responsive-mode-curiosity-award/ ; AHRC research funding guide for applicants, updated 12 August 2026. https://www.ukri.org/publications/ahrc-research-funding-guide/ahrc-research-funding-guide-for-applicants/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩

  13. UKRI, ESRC responsive mode: research grants round two (closes 4 November 2026). https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/esrc-responsive-mode-research-grants-round-two/ ↩↩↩↩

  14. UKRI, BBSRC standard research grant: applicant-led mode (opened 1 May 2026). https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/bbsrc-standard-research-grant-applicant-led-mode/ ; BBSRC, What happens after you submit your application, updated 8 May 2026. https://www.ukri.org/councils/bbsrc/guidance-for-applicants/what-happens-after-you-submit-your-proposal/ ↩↩↩↩

  15. UKRI, MRC research grant: applicant-led (published 12 October 2026). https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/mrc-research-grant-applicant-led/ ; the multi-council opportunity without a letters requirement: Advancing solutions for critical mineral production and recycling, published 14 October 2026. https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/advancing-solutions-for-critical-mineral-production-and-recycling/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩

  16. UKRI, NERC Pushing the frontiers of environmental research, updated 1 October 2026. https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/pushing-the-frontiers-of-environmental-research/ ↩↩↩↩

  17. UKRI, EPSRC standard research grant Nov 2023: responsive mode. https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/epsrc-standard-research-grant-nov-2023-responsive-mode/ ; EPSRC new investigator award: applicant-led mode (opened 5 August 2026). https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/epsrc-new-investigator-award-applicant-led-mode/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩

  18. UKRI, Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) guidance, updated 30 April 2026. https://www.ukri.org/apply-for-funding/how-to-apply/resume-for-research-and-innovation-r4ri-guidance ↩↩

  19. University of Westminster research office, What we know about changes to Impact in UKRI proposals, 27 February 2020. https://blog.westminster.ac.uk/researchoffice/what-we-know-about-changes-to-impact-in-ukri-proposals/ ↩↩

  20. UKRI, Future Leaders Fellowships Round 10. https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/future-leaders-fellowships-round-10/ ↩↩↩

  21. UKRI, Future Leaders Fellowships outcomes and EDI data, updated 23 February 2026. https://www.ukri.org/publications/future-leaders-fellowships-outcomes-and-edi-data/ ; UKRI funding finder, search "future leaders fellowships", read 18 October 2026. https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/?keywords=future+leaders+fellowships ↩↩

  22. European Commission, Horizon Europe Work Programme 2023-2025, 13. General Annexes (Decision C(2025) 2779 of 14 May 2025), Annex D, Award criteria. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2023-2024/wp-13-general-annexes_horizon-2023-2024_en.pdf ↩↩↩↩↩

  23. European Commission, Steps in the evaluation process, Horizon Europe (2021 slide deck, hosted by the Austrian agency FFG). https://www.ffg.at/sites/default/files/allgemeine_downloads/europaeische_und_internationale_programme/HE%20RF/NCP-Meetings/04_Evaluation%20Process.pdf ↩↩

  24. GOV.UK, UK joins Horizon Europe under a new bespoke deal, 7 September 2023. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-joins-horizon-europe-under-a-new-bespoke-deal ↩

  25. ERC, Practical hints and tips for a successful ERC application (Evi Lianidou), October 2025 (PDF). https://erc.europa.eu/system/files/2025-10/Presentation-Practical-hints-and-tips-for-a%20successful-ERC-application-Lianidou.pdf ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  26. UKRO, Changes to the 2026 and 2027 ERC Work Programmes. https://www.ukro.ac.uk/news/changes-to-the-2026-and-2027-erc-work-programmes/ ↩

  27. NIHR, Guidance for applicants on working with people and communities (quoted from page summaries; nihr.ac.uk could not be opened in October 2026). https://www.nihr.ac.uk/research-funding/application-support/working-with-people-and-communities ; NIHR, Guidance for public reviewers of research funding applications. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/guidance-for-public-reviewers-of-research-funding-applications/12245 ↩

  28. Analysis of 114 NIHR feedback documents, University of Southampton, BMJ Open, 2021 (abstract listing via DOAJ; full text not opened). https://doaj.org/article/beb3a7064d0b471eba0059bd5ed7722b ↩

  29. Simon Peyton Jones and Alan Bundy, How to write a great research proposal, Microsoft Research (undated, about 2016). https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/academic-program/how-to-write-a-great-research-proposal/ ↩↩↩↩↩

  30. ESRC, How to write a good application, updated 7 July 2026. https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/how-to-write-a-good-application/ ↩↩↩↩

  31. FFG, ERC proposals published by Principal Investigators. https://www.ffg.at/europa/heu/erc/published-proposals ↩

  32. Elselijn Kingma, BUMP, ERC Starting Grant 2015, Part B1 (University of Southampton PDF). https://cdn.southampton.ac.uk/assets/imported/transforms/content-block/UsefulDownloads_Download/90F738F851E64C3CA28788ED367B1AA3/Kingma%20BUMP%20ERC_StG_2015%20B1.pdf ; CORDIS, project 679586 BUMP. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/679586 ↩↩

  33. Thomas Emery, ERC Starting Grant Proposal, Childcare Strategies (B1 and B2), Zenodo, 19 July 2022. https://zenodo.org/records/6860359 ; Jill Walker Rettberg, Proposal: Machine Vision in Everyday Life (Part B1), Zenodo, 2023. https://zenodo.org/record/8006711 ↩

  34. Open Grants (ogrants) repository. https://github.com/ethanwhite/ogrants ; Joint Funders Group, Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI)-like narrative CV: template synthesis v2.0, Zenodo, 20 June 2023. https://zenodo.org/records/8060637 ↩↩

  35. N8 Research Partnership. https://www.n8research.org.uk/ ; NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast. https://arc-nwc.nihr.ac.uk/ ↩

  36. UKRI, How applicants use the UKRI Funding Service, updated 19 February 2026. https://www.ukri.org/apply-for-funding/develop-your-application/how-applicants-use-the-ukri-funding-service/ ↩↩↩↩

  37. ESRC, Types of funding we offer, updated 8 September 2026. https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/guidance-for-applicants/types-of-funding-we-offer/ ↩

  38. UKRI, BBSRC new investigator award: applicant-led mode (opened 1 May 2026). https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/bbsrc-new-investigator-award-applicant-led-mode/ ; MRC new investigator research grant: applicant-led (opened 12 October 2026). https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/mrc-new-investigator-research-grant-applicant-led/ ↩

Written for businesses, founders and researchers in the North West of England and checked against the sources listed above on 18 October 2026. Funders change their rules, so always read the current call before you apply. Spotted something out of date? Tell us.

Start hereHow funding really works: the honest guide to your odds, your options and where to startWhat each kind of money wants back, the real success rates with dates, the five things that move them, and three first steps for founders, SMEs, researchers, charities and public-sector suppliers.26 min readGrantsThe questions every grant application asks, and how to answer each one wellThe dozen questions every grant form asks under different names, what each funder really wants, a skeleton for each, and the limits, timelines and templates.22 min readResearch fundingFrom research to company: ICURe, impact funds, spin-outs and the money along the wayThe staged route from a disclosure to a funded spin-out, the money at each step, the equity terms investors now accept, and what North West researchers can use.19 min readPeople and relationshipsThe team: what funders and investors look for, and why naming your gaps winsWhat every assessor, reviewer and investor tests in a team, quoted from their own scoring bands, and a team answer to copy. Naming your gaps scores higher than hiding them.14 min read

Put it to work

Find live opportunities → Get email alerts All guides