In part I I discussed the importance of using rejection as a learning platform. Here in Part II, I expand on those thoughts.
Realize that it is all a matter
That’s the one “nice” thing about grant rejections from NIH or NSF: they almost always contain at least two reviews. From those, you may get at least some idea of where the reviewers were coming from, in order to figure out how to fix the problems (or whether to start over).
That grant was submitted, and on its first round of submission, it got a score around 5th percentile. My colleague helped me turn my grant proposal from junk into a more than fundable proposal - simply by looking at my specific aims, and nothing else.
nobody is going to tout your work for you, you have to do it yourself, and it is a critical part of any type of communication you produce as a scientist.