Consulting Service
Grant Proposal Consulting
Proposals are read by tired reviewers looking for reasons to say no. This consulting builds the narrative, work plan, and reviewer-facing language that survive that reading — from someone who has won DFG, Humboldt, DAAD, JSPS, and Joachim Herz funding with his own.
Who this is for
The postdoc writing their first independent fellowship application — AvH, DFG Walter Benjamin, Marie Curie — where the proposal is the career move. The group leader whose science is strong but whose proposals keep coming back with "lacks focus." The researcher moving between funding systems who knows their old instincts do not transfer.
Grant writing is not scientific writing. A paper reports what you did; a proposal sells what you have not done yet, to a reviewer who is looking for reasons to say no. Those are different crafts.
What the consulting covers
Why me
I do not teach grant writing from a handbook. The DFG project I worked in (IMPACT), the Humboldt grant, the JSPS fellowship at Kyoto, the DAAD grants, and the Joachim Herz fellowship were all won with proposals I wrote or co-wrote — across two funding cultures and at every career stage from postdoc to professor. I know what the rejection letters say, because I have received those too, and the difference between the versions that failed and the ones that funded is exactly what the consulting transfers.
Anyone who has the opportunity to have Dr. Qayyum as a professor, mentor, leader, colleague, or even just a friend is exceptionally fortunate. He embodies each of these roles with integrity, passion, and excellence. — Teqwa Khelifa, MSc Student, Institute of Metal Forming, TU Bergakademie Freiberg
How it works
- 15-minute call. You name the scheme, the deadline, and where the proposal stands. I tell you honestly whether the timeline is realistic and where the biggest risk sits.
- Scoped engagement. A pre-submission review (1–2 weeks), structural consulting from the concept stage, or support across the full writing cycle — agreed in writing before we start.
- Your proposal, your pen. Every session works on your live draft. You leave with concrete revisions and the reviewer's-eye method that produced them.
Common questions
Which funding schemes do you know from the inside?
DFG, Alexander von Humboldt, DAAD, JSPS, Joachim Herz, and SAB — all won personally. EU Horizon and foundation schemes through collaboration. The structural method transfers to any competitive scheme with peer review.
When should I involve you?
Ideally before the first draft, when the research question and work packages are still fluid. The most common engagement is still the pre-submission review of a complete draft — useful, but restructuring costs more the later it happens.
Will you write it for me?
No — and you should be suspicious of anyone who offers. Funders require your own intellectual contribution, and a ghost-written proposal collapses at the interview. I structure, stress-test, and sharpen; you write.
My science is strong but I keep getting rejected. Why?
Usually the fit argument. Strong science with no explicit answer to "why this applicant, why now" reads as a literature review with a budget. That is fixable, and it is the single most common thing I fix.
Do you help with the rebuttal after a rejection?
Yes. Reviewer comments are a map of what the next version must do differently — reading them coldly and planning the resubmission is a standard single-session engagement.
Start With 15 Minutes
Book a call and name the scheme and the deadline. I will tell you honestly whether the plan is realistic, where the proposal is weakest — and whether you need help at all.
Book a 15-Minute Call Send a MessageRelated reading: How to build a postdoc network in Germany before you need one · Scientific writing coaching