Categorize Reviewer Feedback Strategically
NSF SBIR reviewer comments can feel cryptic—but most fall into predictable themes. By decoding them into five key categories, you can transform vague critiques into a focused revision plan.
- Technical
- Market
- Team
- Impacts
- Budget
Signal: “Approach is vague” or “feasibility unclear.”
Issue: Reviewers doubt whether your research will work.
Fix: Add detailed methodology, risk mitigation, and preliminary results.
Signal: “Market analysis is thin.”
Issue: Reviewers aren’t convinced there’s customer demand.
Fix: Expand market sizing, add customer interviews, and explain competitive advantage.
Signal: “Team lacks experience in X.”
Issue: Doubts about your ability to deliver.
Fix: Strengthen biosketches and add advisors with domain expertise.
Signal: “Broader impacts not addressed.”
Issue: Reviewers see no societal benefit.
Fix: Add outreach, diversity, or education components tied to your project.
Signal: “Budget seems high” or “scope too ambitious.”
Issue: Misalignment of costs and tasks.
Fix: Adjust work plan and justify key expenditures clearly.
Prioritize and Address Key Critiques in Revision
Not all reviewer comments carry equal weight. Some point to fixable details; others reveal core weaknesses that can sink your proposal. A successful resubmission begins by distinguishing between the two.
Start by grouping all feedback by theme—technical, market, team, impacts, and budget. Then highlight the issues mentioned by more than one reviewer. These repeated critiques matter most. If several reviewers questioned feasibility, market demand, or team expertise, your revision must focus there first. Fixing a typo won’t matter if reviewers think the core science is unworkable.
Likewise, identify any “fatal flaw” comments, even if raised by just one reviewer. Statements like “no evidence of customer need” or “missing data undermines feasibility” demand attention. These signal disqualifying gaps that can override strengths elsewhere.
When addressing major critiques, be specific. Avoid saying “we will clarify the approach” without showing how. Instead, revise the narrative itself: expand methods, add data, cite new market validation, or adjust scope. Reviewers are reading the revised proposal fresh. They aren’t comparing drafts—they’re assessing if the current version tells a credible, compelling story.
Minor or isolated comments—especially those not echoed by others—can usually wait. But use your judgment. If a lone reviewer made a sharp point that feels valid, fix it. Conversely, if a comment misreads your intent and no one else echoed it, a minor clarification may suffice.
Above all, keep your edits reviewer-centric. Don’t just fix what you care about—fix what they flagged.
Prioritize for impact:
Start with repeated critiques and potential deal-breakers. Don’t dilute your revision with cosmetic fixes while leaving core concerns unaddressed.
Embed Reviewer Response Directly Into Proposal
NSF does not require a formal rebuttal letter. Instead, they expect you to revise the proposal narrative itself. That means embedding your responses where they matter—clearly, constructively, and without directly arguing with reviewers.
Use the accordion below to navigate how to integrate feedback section-by-section:
Craft a Strong Resubmission Change Description
For NSF SBIR Phase I resubmissions, you’re required to include a one-page “Resubmission Change Description” under “Other Supplementary Documents” in Research.gov. While brief, this summary can shape how reviewers read your proposal—especially if they previously saw it.
The goal is not to re-argue your case. It’s to demonstrate that you took the feedback seriously and improved the proposal accordingly.
Start by paraphrasing major reviewer concerns by theme—don’t quote verbatim. Then explain, in 1–2 sentences each, how you addressed those issues. For example:
- “Reviewer 1 noted limited detail in the technical approach. Section 2 now includes a workflow diagram and preliminary results from initial testing.”
- “Reviewers raised concerns about market need. We added market size estimates, a competitor table, and letters from two potential customers.”
Use plain, confident language. Avoid defensive phrases like “we disagree” or “reviewer misunderstood.” Instead, show that feedback made the proposal stronger.
Don’t list trivial edits or try to rebut every comment. Instead, prioritize core weaknesses: technical feasibility, commercialization potential, team capacity, and societal impact.
This document should align with your actual revisions. Reviewers will check—so if you say you added new data, make sure it’s there, easy to find, and clearly presented.
Upload reminder:
The Change Description goes in Research.gov under “Other Supplementary Documents.” Title it exactly: Resubmission Change Description.
Reframe the Narrative, Not Just the Details
When revising an NSF SBIR proposal, it’s tempting to treat the resubmission as a checklist—tackling each reviewer comment line-by-line. But if your original proposal was declined, the issue often runs deeper than any single flaw. Successful resubmissions often rework the overall structure and message—not just the surface-level edits.
Ask yourself: Does your revised draft tell a sharper, clearer, more compelling story than before? Have you clarified your core value proposition, improved logical flow, and cut jargon or filler? Many applicants underestimate how much these elements affect reviewer perception.
Start by reassessing the proposal’s arc. Are your technical goals realistic and clearly explained? Is there a visible through-line from problem to solution to market? Is the team narrative credible and aligned with the project’s needs?
If your commercialization plan was thin, don’t just add data—restructure the section to better articulate your go-to-market path. If reviewers flagged feasibility, revisit your technical plan’s framing, not just the content. Often, reorganizing or renaming subsections (e.g., adding a “Risk Mitigation” subheading) improves clarity and confidence.
Also consider layout. Are your visuals easy to read and directly tied to the text? Does the formatting help reviewers quickly understand your argument, or create friction?
Finally, remember: NSF reviewers see your resubmission as a new proposal. Don’t assume they remember what you wrote last time. Revise with fresh eyes.
Treat it like new:
Revise your proposal as if reviewers are seeing it for the first time. Reframe weak areas, not just patch comments.