[Durgical](https://durgical.com/en/) › [DurgiPedia](https://durgical.com/en/durgipedia/) › [Epidemiology](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/) › [Research methods](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/areas/research/) › Applying for research funding

# Applying for research funding

- Concept

How a project is put to a funding call: its parts, how the budget is built and the criteria used to score it.

Updated Nov 13, 2026

## Key points

- Usual parts: summary, problem statement and rationale, state of the art, objectives, methods, expected results and impact, timeline, budget, team and ethical aspects.
- Every budget line is justified by an activity in the timeline.
- The terms of reference rule: requirements, format, allowed budget lines, matching funds and closing date.
- Typical scoring criteria: scientific quality, team, impact, budget and dissemination plan; each call sets its own points.
- In Colombia, the researcher's record (CvLAC), the group's record (GrupLAC) and ethics committee approval are often required.

On this page

- The basics Key points
- What it is
- Key facts
- Worked example
- Parts of a proposal and what reviewers look for
- Markers
- In practice
- Common pitfalls
- Memory aid
- Elsewhere in DurgiPedia

- Study Test yourself

- Connections Connections

## What it is

A funding application is the protocol turned into a proposal: it summarises the problem, the question, the methods, the team, the expected results, the timeline and a justified budget, fitted to the call's terms of reference. Reviewers score scientific quality, team capacity, impact and budget coherence. In Colombia the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (Minciencias) publishes public calls; universities, the General Royalties System (Sistema General de Regalías) and international bodies also fund projects.

## Key facts

- Typical budget lines: staff, equipment, materials and supplies, technical services, travel, dissemination and overheads.
- Matching funds: what the institution contributes (staff time, space, equipment) on top of the amount requested.

## Worked example

- Made-up 18-month project; 150 million Colombian pesos are requested from a public call.
- Budget: staff 90 (60 %), laboratory 30 (20 %), field travel 12 (8 %), materials 9 (6 %), dissemination 9 (6 %).
- Check: 90 + 30 + 12 + 9 + 9 = 150 million; each line is justified by an activity in the timeline.
- Review (illustrative scores): scientific quality 34/40, team 16/20, impact 17/20.
- Budget coherence 7/10; ethics and dissemination 8/10. Total: 34 + 16 + 17 + 7 + 8 = 82 out of 100.
- With a threshold of 70 it enters the pool of eligible projects, but funding goes in score order until the money runs out.
- Reading: of the 18 points lost, scientific quality lost the most (6); sharpening the methods would help most.

## Parts of a proposal and what reviewers look for

| Part | What the reviewer looks for |
| --- | --- |
| Problem and rationale | A real, documented need |
| Objectives | Concrete, measurable and achievable within the period |
| Methods | A design that answers the question with an adequate sample size |
| Team | Experience and clear roles |
| Results and impact | Concrete products and benefit to health |
| Budget | Justified lines consistent with the timeline |

## Markers

- ToR
- CvLAC
- GrupLAC
- Matching funds

## In practice

- Reading the whole terms of reference before writing avoids rejection on formal requirements.
- A proposal with ethics approval, letters of commitment from the sites and a previous pilot is more credible.

## Common pitfalls

- Requesting budget lines the call does not allow.
- Promising results the sample size cannot deliver.
- Submitting on the last day, with no time to fix platform errors.

## Memory aid

‘Every peso has a job’: a budget line with no activity in the timeline is not needed.

## Test yourself

Think of the answer, then tap the question to see it.

## What are a call's terms of reference?

The document with the requirements, format, allowed budget lines, scoring criteria and dates.

## A budget of 80 million has 48 in staff. What percentage is that?

48 / 80 = 60 %.

## What are matching funds?

The executing institution's contribution (staff, space, equipment or money) on top of the amount requested.

## Which body publishes Colombia's national science funding calls?

The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (Minciencias).

[Add to my cards (4)](https://durgical.app/estudiar/?add=/en/epidemiology/applying-for-research-funding/)

## Elsewhere in DurgiPedia

- [Research ethics committees](https://durgical.com/en/medical-ethics/research-ethics-committees/)

## Connections

## Related 4

- [The research protocol](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/the-research-protocol/)
- [The research question and objective](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/the-research-question-and-objective/)
- [Sample size](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/sample-size/)
- [Statistical analysis plan](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/statistical-analysis-plan/)

[← All of epidemiology](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/)

Educational content on epidemiological and statistical methods; the examples use made-up numbers to teach the calculation. Not a clinical or legal guide: current Colombian rules are in the official sources.

Sources: [Convocatorias | Minciencias](https://minciencias.gov.co/convocatorias) (Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (Minciencias), Colombia, 2026); [SPIRIT 2025 Statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials](https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/spirit/) (EQUATOR Network, 2025).

## **Spotted a mistake?** We are always improving for the community. Tell us what is wrong and our team will review it. Report a mistake

Representative model, for educational purposes only.

---
Source: https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/applying-for-research-funding/
License: CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Cite as: DurgiPedia (durgical.com), https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/applying-for-research-funding/