By Renata Torres da Costa
“Obtaining your own fellowship is more than just a feather in your academic cap; it can be the key to supporting your research and shaping your training path.”
Janet Alder, Ph.D.
On September 11th, 2025, Rutgers iJOBS hosted a workshop on the fellowship application process for Biomedical PhD students. The event offered key insights and practical advice for students applying for fellowships. Featured speakers included Dr. Teresa Delcorso-Ellman, founder of Rutgers GradFund, and Dr. Carol Lutz, who serves on study sections for both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and American Heart Association (AHA). They explained the fellowship landscape, how to identify funding opportunities, and how reviewers make their decisions. Additionally, a panel of graduate students and their mentors shared their experiences writing successful fellowship applications. Keep reading for key takeaways from their success stories and insights on fellowship applications from the experts.
Understanding the fellowship landscape and opportunities
Navigating the fellowship landscape on your own can be confusing if you have never applied for a fellowship before. Fortunately, Dr. Teresa Delcorso-Ellman offered a helpful roadmap for biomedical PhD students seeking fellowship opportunities. First, you need to understand the differences between internal and external funding and grants and fellowships. Internal funding, such as departmental or university fellowships, typically supports immediate training needs. External funding often more competitive and supports larger-scale research projects. Both internal and external funding provide grant and fellowship opportunities. Grants cover expenses related to research, while fellowships cover research expenses and invest in the researcher.
When considering what type of funding you should apply for, consider asking yourself: What do I need support for? This simple question can point you toward the opportunity that best suits your goals as a researcher. Once you decide what project you would like to be funded, first consider our Rutgers University resources for funding opportunities. You can learn about Rutgers fellowship options for STEM students here. You may also explore funding databases like Grants.gov, PIVOT (via Rutgers), and those hosted by peer institutions or professional societies. For international students, there are filter options to only search opportunities that you are eligible to apply for in these databases. You should also see if your research fits within NIH and National Science Foundation (NSF) fellowship opportunities. Though the applications can be particularly daunting, receiving these prestigious grants as a graduate student (as many Rutgers students have) can have a profound impact on your career.
Once you have decided which grant or fellowship you would like to apply to, Dr. Delcorso-Ellman suggests applicants carve out six months to write the application. This includes time to receive feedback and revisions. Rutgers offers excellent services for PhD students who are considering applying for funding. GradFund offers extensive resources, including individual advising, peer mentoring, application reviews, and self-paced courses. Since most deadlines occur around September and March, now is a good time to start looking or preparing for a funding application.
What reviewers from study sections look for in fellowship applications
The second featured speaker, Dr. Lutz, shed light on how the review process works, what truly matters to reviewers, and how applicants can strengthen their chances. Dr. Lutz explained how these awards are not simply about supporting good science, but also to support an individual’s research training and career development. Therefore, aplications are judged on the research proposal, applicant’s preparedness, mentor’s commitment, and quality of the environment that will shape the trainee’s career. Since reviewers can differ in their opinion of how prepared an applicant is, this process is conducted by a group of reviewers.
At the NIH and AHA, every proposal is assigned to a study section based on subject matter before being assigned to three primary reviewers who spend four to six weeks reading and writing thorough critiques. All members from the review committee score the application using four main factors (with some variation across funding agencies): candidate potential, rigor and feasibility of the research plan, mentor investment, and strength of institutional resources. At the NIH, each element is graded on a scale of 1 to 9, with 1 being the best score. To get a low overall score, every part of the application must strongly support the applicant’s promise as a future scientist. Only the most competitive (top 50%) are discussed in detail in the committee meeting. Clear and organized proposals with a strong mentorship plan are more likely to be discussed. The top proposals receive a final impact score, and the funding decisions depend on the final percentile ranking (from the top 50% discussed proposals) and the institute’s payline. Typically, proposals around the 10th percentile are the most likely to be funded.
Stories of strategy, persistence, and success
The third and final part of the workshop consisted of dynamic talks from pairs of panelists comprised of PhD students and their mentors from Rutgers University. The discussions were highly constructive, providing practical insight from successful applicants who received funding from different funding agencies. Each story highlighted different strategies, challenges, and motivations, reminding us that there’s no single path to success.
- Joycelyn Radeny, an international Ph.D. student, applied to an AHA Predoctoral fellowship after her qualifying exam. She relied on the strength of her idea and the literature supporting it, as she didn’t have preliminary data. The effort paid off; her well-crafted proposal secured two years of funding on her first attempt, covering both tuition and stipend. Her mentor, Dr. Samantha Bell, emphasized how “tailoring the application to the agency’s mission is crucial.”
- Li Ling Goldston pursued the NSF GRFP fellowship early in her second year as a PhD student, before qualifying exams. She started preparing her application in September for an October deadline, revising with peers and carefully designing schematics to illustrate her aims. Her mentor, Dr. Ki-Bum Lee, highlighted that “crafting good visual elements and a clear flow in the text of the documents are critical to create a proposal that is reviewer-friendly.”
- Chris Alcott shared lessons from applying twice to the New Jersey Commission on Cancer Research fellowship (NJCCR). Formatting errors, such as small figures or a small font size cost him points the first time, but persistence paid off, and he successfully secured funding the second time. His mentor, Dr. Kyle Kristopher Payne, reminded students that “fellowships are not just about data – they’re also opportunities to refine scientific questions and grow as researchers.”
- Rebecca Shear, a recipient of the NIH F31 fellowship at NINDS, discussed her experience of applying three times before securing her award. She adapted her proposal in collaboration with co-mentors and reorganized approaches, underscoring the importance of persistence. She also noted the US citizenship requirements to apply for this fellowship. Dr. Huaye Zhang, her mentor, reinforced that “consistency across the entire application package is essential; every section of the application had to ‘echo’ the same message.” She also advised students to check which NIH institutes have supported their PI’s research to target the proper funding mechanism.
- Finally, Elaheh Hosseini, an international PhD student, discussed her insights in the NIH F99/K00 fellowship, which is designed to support the transition from PhD to postdoc. Unlike some early-stage awards, this mechanism requires preliminary data and a carefully constructed training narrative. She emphasized how the applicant must convincingly articulate both scientific progress and a clear vision for the transition ahead. Her mentor, Dr. Kyle Kristopher Payne, added that “building a strong team of mentors is critical, since reviewers evaluate the mentorship network as much as the science.” Their takeaway: for students considering this award, preparation should start at the very beginning of doctoral studies.
Together, these stories illustrated that success in fellowship funding rarely depends on good science alone. Applying for a fellowship is more than just a method to secure research support—it is a learning experience that strengthens your ability to write clearly, think strategically, and perservere through feedback and revisions. The most successful applications combine strong science with persistence, mentorship, and a proposal that aligns closely with the funder’s interests. So, be sure to use the resources available to you at Rutgers University or your university when you start applying for a fellowship, and good luck!
This article was edited by Junior Editor Joshua Stuckey, Junior Editor Janaina Cruz Pereira, and Senior Editor Antonia Kaz.