https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0918-4064
Figures
Abstract
In grant applications, oral presentations can be an integral part of the evaluation process. Funding pitches are a specific form of pitch presentations delivered during competitive review procedures to complement a written proposal. Their goal is to convince reviewers of both your project's strength and excellence as well as your suitability as a researcher. This paper offers ten simple rules on how to prepare and deliver effective funding pitches, with a particular focus on content selection, clear structuring, and convincing scientific argumentation. We also highlight the importance of practice and feedback and share practical strategies on how to handle questions and critical discussion professionally.
Citation: Göbel A, Rachner TD (2026) Ten simple rules for preparing and delivering effective funding pitches in competitive grant applications. PLoS Comput Biol 22(10): e1014840. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014840
Editor: Scott Markel, Dassault Systemes BIOVIA Ltd, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Published: October 7, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Göbel, Rachner. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The work was funded by individual grants and as part of the priority program (SPP-2084) μBONE by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to AG (GO 3055/4-1) and to TDR (RA 2151/5-1, RA 2151/7-1), by the Deutsche Krebshilfe to AG and TDR as part of the Mildred Scheel Early Career Center and by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) as part of the CAMINO - Career Advancement in MultIdimeNsional tumOr targeting program (#01EO2101). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Grant applications are an essential part of a scientific career. Although written proposals remain the central component of most application processes, some funding organizations and institutional programs additionally invite selected applicants to present their project orally in front of a review panel, typically followed by questions and critical discussion. These funding pitches provide applicants with an opportunity to clarify the central idea of their proposal, emphasize its relevance and feasibility, and demonstrate their ability to conduct the planned research. Their primary purpose is to support the assessment of the proposed project and the applicant within a formal funding decision.
Often, pitch talks, also known as “elevator pitches,” are the format of choice, as they require you to convince your audience within the time span of an average elevator ride (usually 1–5 min). Funding pitches may differ in duration, presentation setting, available media, evaluation criteria, career stage, and project scale, depending on the specific funding process. A pitch for an intramural early-career grant may therefore require a different emphasis than a presentation for a larger collaborative proposal or a topic-specific funding call. When preparing the pitch, the specific requirements and evaluation criteria of the respective funding program should therefore always be considered.
The ten rules presented here combine principles from the literature on scientific presentations, science communication, and research pitching with our practical and teaching experience with funding-related presentations. Rather than being derived from a formal systematic review, the rules synthesize recurring principles that we considered most relevant to the preparation and delivery of short funding pitches. They were organized to broadly follow the preparation process, from understanding the purpose and review panel to developing the content, presentation, and delivery. They are intended as a checklist for researchers who have submitted a grant proposal and are now preparing to present and discuss their project with a review panel. The rules should help applicants identify the content, arguments, and presentation strategy most relevant to their particular funding context.
Before you start – Understand the purpose of a funding pitch
In general, presentations serve four common purposes: to inform or educate, to convince or persuade, to inspire or motivate, and to entertain [1]. Pitch talks combine these elements with a particular focus on presenting a project idea in a concise and convincing way. Indeed, pitch talks are a powerful communication tool increasingly used in the context of grant applications, interdisciplinary collaborations, and innovation-driven environments [2,3].
Their specific purpose, however, depends strongly on the context in which they are delivered. In a funding context, a pitch should convince a review panel that the proposed project is relevant, scientifically sound, feasible, and worth supporting, and that the applicant is well suited to conduct it.
Funding pitches are typically very short (1–5 min), sharply focused, and precise (Fig 1). Importantly, they are not simply condensed versions of standard presentations. Rather than providing a comprehensive overview of the written proposal, they require applicants to identify its most important elements, present strong and well-supported arguments, and make the relevance of the proposed research immediately clear. An effective funding pitch should also provide a strong basis for the subsequent discussion, in which reviewers can explore scientific details, limitations, risks, feasibility, and other aspects of the proposal.
One frequently cited historical example illustrates the basic idea behind pitching. In the middle of the 19th century, elevator use was considered highly risky due to frequent malfunctions and fatal falls [4]. At the 1854 World’s Fair in New York, the American inventor Elisha Otis constructed a visible elevator shaft in front of a live audience. While standing on top of the platform, he instructed his assistant to cut the supporting rope. As the platform began to fall, panic spread through the crowd until the safety brakes triggered and brought the platform to a sudden halt before reaching the ground. Otis, enjoying the dramatic effect of his demonstration, announced: “All safe, gentlemen. All safe.” The public perception of elevators was revolutionized and just recently, the Otis Elevator Company celebrated its 170th anniversary, an achievement that, at least in part, originates from Elisha Otis’s memorable demonstration [4–6].
This example illustrates that an effective pitch starts from a relevant problem, makes clear why it matters, and demonstrates how the proposed solution addresses it. In a funding pitch, this should be communicated by explaining why a scientific problem deserves attention, how the proposed project will address it, and why the applicant and approach are ideally suited.
Rule 1 – Analyze the review panel
Funding pitches are prepared for the review panel, not for the applicant. Before you start working on the content, consider who will evaluate your project and what they need to assess it [7,8]. The content and tone of your funding pitch should be carefully tailored to the specific audience. Four specific questions help you define it [9]:
First: Who are they?
A review panel often consists of basic and clinical scientists, mostly professors or at least researchers with solid and long-standing experience. Depending on whether you are pitching for an external third-party funder or for internal institutional calls, reviewers may be local, national, or international invited experts. In addition, deciding representatives of the funding organization itself may participate in the selection process.
Second: What is their level of expertise in your scientific field?
A review panel must be composed of qualified people to assess the quality of your project as well as your eligibility as a researcher. However, even highly qualified reviewers with strong expertise in related approaches may not be equally familiar with all the details of your work, specific methods, technologies, or concepts, particularly when the panel includes experts from adjacent scientific fields [10]. Regardless of their background, always adapt your explanations and terminology according to the reviewers’ expertise and consider their perspective [11]. Always be prepared for reviewers who are unfamiliar with your topic [3]. For example, clinicians may benefit from a brief reminder of specific mechanistic concepts, whereas basic researchers may require additional context on clinical challenges in daily patient care. The goal is not to oversimplify the science, but to provide all reviewers with the information they need to follow and evaluate your arguments.
Third: How do the listeners feel about you and your topic?
In the ideal scenario, reviewers are already interested in your topic, familiar with your field, and convinced by important aspects of your written proposal. In that case, you may be able to focus more strongly on specific details, your unique approach, or preliminary data. However, reviewers may also be indifferent, skeptical, or even critical about individual aspects of your hypothesis, approach, feasibility, or your suitability as the ideal applicant. Particularly in such cases, it is important to establish your credibility early, clearly explain the relevance of your project, and provide well-reasoned arguments that directly address potential concerns.
Fourth: What is the goal of the listeners?
In funding, reviewers aim to identify the most promising projects that meet the objectives and evaluation criteria of the respective funding program and to assess whether the applicants are qualified to conduct them successfully. They also need to evaluate whether the proposed project is scientifically sound, feasible, and likely to make effective use of the requested funding.
But how can you analyze the listeners?
If the names of the reviewer panel are publicly available, professional information can help you understand their scientific background, expertise, and research interests. Useful sources include institutional and laboratory websites, scientific publications and PubMed records, as well as publicly available professional profiles, interviews, press articles, or presentations [4]. If colleagues have previously interacted with members of the panel in a professional context, they may also be able to provide information about their scientific interests or the types of questions they commonly raise [12].
If the reviewers are unknown in case of blinded or confidential review processes, prepare for a heterogeneous panel rather than trying to predict individual personalities, characteristics, or preferences. Consider different scientific backgrounds and levels of familiarity with your topic and ask colleagues from both within and outside your research field to review your pitch and challenge you with questions. Such rehearsals can reveal assumptions, unclear explanations, or potential questions that you may otherwise overlook (see Rule 8).
Analyzing the audience is a key consideration in scientific communication [10,13,14]. Being conscious of the audience’s expertise, background, attitudes, and goals will help you make better decisions in terms of background information, terminology, and most effective arguments. It will also shape how you communicate your message clearly and convincingly [14].
Rule 2 – Define your key messages
The message of a funding pitch is never “Please, support my project with your funding”. This is the goal of your pitch, as it defines what you would like to achieve [15]. In addition to this main goal, you might pursue some personal objectives such as sparking general curiosity about your topic, receiving constructive feedback or new ideas, or leaving a memorable impression as a speaker and researcher.
In a funding pitch, three key messages should be clearly and effectively delivered:
- The problem is relevant and needs to be solved.
- The proposed solution is feasible and will make an impact.
- I am well qualified to carry out the project [16].
While these three key messages provide a general framework for funding pitches, they should be adapted to the specific project, funding call, and evaluation criteria and supported by appropriate evidence. Beyond the three key messages, it is helpful to define one clear take-home message that you want the review panel to remember, a concise statement summarizing the central idea of your project and the expected impact.
Rule 3 – Describe the scientific problem & present the solution
It is essential to reduce the complexity of your projects to its core. One of the first critical considerations is: Why should the review panel care at all? To engage the reviewers, they must understand why your project is relevant. In essence, they need to understand what problem your research is trying to solve and why it needs to be solved now [16] (Table 1). Clarifying which category your project addresses helps to evaluate its relevance [2]. Avoid vague or overly broad problem statements and define the problem as precisely as possible. Be specific, identify its underlying cause, clarify who or what is affected, consider potential barriers, and above all, explain why the problem matters now (Fig 2). A clearly stated problem increases credibility and helps the review panel understand the relevance and urgency of your project from the very beginning.
The framework highlights key questions to specify the problem, identify its causes and affected stakeholders, understand existing barriers, and clarify why the problem requires attention now.
The next key question is: How is your research contributing to solving the problem? At this stage, put your approach in a broad context and write out the full strategy, including every single effort that contributes to the solution, beyond wet lab experiments. Your approach may include in vitro, in vivo, and in silico experiments, clinical data, patient cohorts, novel technologies, or other methodological and conceptual approaches that are essential to your project.
Rule 4 – Collect convincing arguments
Having defined the problem and your proposed solution, you should now collect strong arguments that emphasize why your project deserves funding, why your approach is suitable to address the problem, and why you are the ideal candidate to successfully conduct the project (Table 2). Select and prioritize these arguments according to the objectives and evaluation criteria of the respective funding call. Persuasive arguments should be supported by evidence and should openly acknowledge relevant uncertainties, limitations, and risks of the proposed approach.
Project-related arguments include the feasibility and expected impact of your project as well as its potential to generate new knowledge, publications, follow-up projects, or collaborations. Define how your project fills a gap in knowledge, establishes novel concepts, and advances the field. To reflect on these dimensions, you may use the FINER criteria (Fig 3). These criteria define whether your project is feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant, help evaluate your research question and collect convincing arguments [17]. Moreover, they may reveal unseen or neglected requirements and help define the broader relevance of the planned study, for example, its potential impact on society, science, and economy [11].
Questions to identify key arguments for your funding pitch. The FINER criteria define whether your project is feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant, help evaluate your research question and collect supportive arguments [17].
Solution-related arguments reinforce the strengths and originality of your solution and should focus on aspects that go beyond standard approaches. These may include key preliminary data, emerging technologies, establishment of novel methods, synergies between different disciplines and partner expertise, translational aspects, novel concepts, industrial or clinical application, or sustainability. Select two or three particularly convincing components of your approach and keep further details for discussion.
Qualification-related arguments establish and strengthen your credibility as a suitable researcher to conduct the project [15]. These include your academic background, experience with the topic, methodological expertise, preliminary work, and established networks within the scientific community. In addition, clearly communicating your motivation and future career perspective can be excellent indicators of your commitment [16]. Consider how the proposed project builds on your previous work and contributes to your further scientific development.
Finally, tailor the selection and adjust the emphasis of your arguments according to the nature of the funding call. Programs for early-career scientists may focus more strongly on the applicant’s qualifications, whereas larger collaborative or translational proposals may require a sharper focus on feasibility, novelty, innovation, translation, application, and cooperation.
Rule 5 – Make use of a compelling structure
Now develop a clear and thoughtful structure that will help you make the most of your limited time. When writing a scientific paper, we typically follow a standard sequence: introduction → materials and methods → results → discussion → conclusion. Many scientists unconsciously copy the same sequence for oral presentations. Particularly in funding pitches, using a “paper-like” structure will certainly fail to deliver your message effectively and to engage the review panel [4]. As the written proposal is usually already available to the reviewers, the funding pitch should not simply reproduce its content. Instead, use the limited presentation time to emphasize those aspects that are most relevant for the funding decision. The selection and structure of your content should therefore reflect the objectives and evaluation criteria of the respective funding call.
An effective approach is the “Speech Structure Building” [18] which is inspired by a building with different rooms and areas, each serving a clear function (Fig 4). Translate this to your funding pitch: You enter the basement with the introduction and problem, move into the core rooms presenting your proposed solution or approach and key arguments, and finish on the rooftop with a concise summary and key message before closing with the expected impact and a final statement.
The structure is based on the Speech Structure Building concept described by Mück [18].
The basement of the “building” is your introduction. Start with a strong opening that immediately captures the audience’s attention, is engaging and relatable, and ideally connects to the problem your research aims to solve. This helps make the relevance of your project clear from the beginning [3,19] (Fig 5).
The next aspect that should be explained early is the problem your project will address and why it matters. Provide only tailored background information that makes the nature and urgency of the problem clear.
In the main rooms of your talk, you present your proposed solution, followed by the strongest arguments for why your project should be funded and why you and your team are well suited to conduct it. Prioritize those arguments that are most relevant to the funding call and that best demonstrate the strengths, feasibility, and expected impact of your project. Essential evidence and key arguments should be presented during the pitch rather than withhold for the discussion, as the corresponding questions may never be asked. Additional details, supporting analyses, and backup data can instead be prepared for the subsequent discussion.
The finishing of your talk must be strong and engaging. At this point, briefly summarize the problem and link it back to why your approach is suited to address it. Take the “drainpipe” back to your initial statement to memorably round off the talk. This closing loop illustrates how your project will help solve the problem, advance the field, or benefit stakeholders, and leaves the review panel with a clear impression of relevance and purpose. Clearly present the expected impact of your project and finish with a concise closing statement that leads naturally into the subsequent discussion (Fig 5).
Do not distribute your presentation time evenly across all sections. Keep general background information concise and reserve most of the available time for your proposed approach, the strongest supporting arguments, and those aspects that are particularly relevant to the funding decision.
Once you have defined your content and created a structure, carefully screen your pitch draft for dispensable information, including extended background details, complete methodological explanation, unrelated context, the entire list of collaborations, infrastructure or budget specifics, and extended acknowledgement [20]. Keep only the information required to understand and evaluate your core argument. Less is more [21]. Too much content also tempts presenters to speak faster, making the pitch difficult to follow. Prioritizing only the most essential and relevant elements ensures that your key messages remain clear and memorable [7].
Selected principles from storytelling can help improve the logical flow and accessibility of a funding pitch [4,9,22–29]. However, narrative elements should support rather than dominate the scientific argumentation and must not replace evidence, appropriate uncertainty, or transparent communication of limitations and risks.
Rule 6 – Craft your visual presentation
The use of visual media in funding pitches depends on the specific requirements of the funding organization, the presentation setting, and the time available. Most funding pitches will involve a classical presentation with visual slides, commonly using PowerPoint or similar software. Where appropriate, other forms of visualization such as physical models, prototypes, or demonstration objects may also support your argument, particularly when they make a novel technology, method, or application easier to understand. Whatever format you choose, every visual element should have a clear purpose and support your message, not replace it [30]. When preparing and polishing your slides, follow established guidelines for effective scientific figure and image design and avoid typical pitfalls (Fig 6) [7,30–39]. Especially in short funding pitches, a graphical abstract or overview figure of the project can help the review panel quickly understand the central concept, research strategy, or relationship between individual work packages [36,40].
Avoid simply copying figures from publications or the written grant proposal as these are often too complex to be processed within a few seconds. Take your time to simplify them, focus on the information that directly supports your key message, and avoid “chart junk” [30]. If you need to display complex info, such as your research strategy or experimental workflow, reveal it step by step in a logical order to keep the review panel oriented [38]. Finally, ensure a clear connection between your spoken and visual presentation: talk about what you show, and show what you talk about [41]. Visuals that are not directly connected to your argumentation can distract from the message rather than strengthen it. Test the slides on different screens and, if possible, check with a test audience to ensure that the essential information can be understood quickly [33,38].
Rule 7 – Get ready for a productive discussion
Your funding pitch does not end with your last sentence. The subsequent discussion is an integral part of the evaluation process and requires equally careful preparation. Reviewers may use their questions to explore different aspects of your proposal, clarify uncertainties, and test how well you understand the strengths, limitations, and feasibility of your project. Regardless of the nature of their questions or objections, you must respond professionally and confidently (Table 3).
Anticipate potential questions by carefully reviewing your proposal from the perspective of the review panel. Identify assumptions, limitations, risks, or aspects that may require further explanation, and make sure you are familiar with relevant literature, current developments, competing positions, and emerging concepts in your field. Collect supporting data, facts, and illustrative examples. Additional backup slides can provide further details when requested, but essential evidence and key arguments should already be part of the funding pitch itself.
However, even with the best preparation, you may encounter questions for which you don’t know the answer or that fall outside your expertise. In these situations, avoid speculation and communicate openly what you can and cannot answer. You may apply the “offer & refer” principle by providing the information you have and referring to a relevant study or, where appropriate, to a knowledgeable colleague in the room. If the review procedure permits follow-up information, you may also offer to provide additional details later [38]. If you do not fully understand a question, repeat and rephrase it to confirm understanding and avoid misinterpretation [20,37]. When facing critical comments, first acknowledge the reviewer’s concern and address it directly. If the criticism identifies a real limitation or risk, explain how it is considered in your project and, where appropriate, describe alternative approaches or contingency plans. Supporting data and additional arguments can help clarify your reasoning, but avoid becoming defensive or simply shifting attention away from the concern. Above all, communicate respectfully and professionally and treat critical questions as part of the scientific evaluation rather than as a personal attack. A clear and composed discussion can further demonstrate your understanding of the project and your ability to conduct it successfully.
Rule 8 – Practice, rehearse, and get feedback
Both your funding pitch and the discussion should be practiced before the actual presentation. When rehearsing, your test audience should ideally include colleagues from both within and outside your specific research field [7,21,38]. If possible, conduct at least one run-through under almost realistic conditions and ask your audience for honest, constructive, and targeted feedback. Time your pitch and identify unnecessary content if you exceed the allowed time. Encourage your test reviewers to ask challenging questions and discuss appropriate answers [15,16]. If you tend to speak too quickly, practice the talk at a pace that feels excessively slow.
For larger research consortia or collaborative proposals, joint rehearsals are particularly important. Ideally, the complete pitch and discussion should be practiced at least once with all involved speakers, including transitions between presenters, timing, technical setup, and the handling of questions. Carefully selected colleagues can act as a mock review panel and challenge the consortium from different scientific perspectives.
While practicing, make sure that your key messages are fully understood. Make use of simple terms and analogies [2]. After your test pitch, ask the audience: “In one sentence, what is your takeaway from my talk?” If the response does not align with your intended message, revise your pitch. Any noise that interferes with clear communication should be identified and removed. This may include:
- Jargon overload or assumed knowledge,
- Dense slides or unreadable visuals,
- Overly complex graphs,
- Lack of focus or poor transitions,
- Monotone voice or low engagement.
Finally, practice alone several times before and after working with a test audience [42]. Speak aloud rather than rehearsing only in your head and practice standing up. Recording yourself on audio or video can help identify issues with body language, voice, pauses, speaking pace, and slide transitions [4,21]. If useful, speech-to-text or AI-based tools may additionally help analyze a transcript for filler words, repeated phrases, or unnecessarily complex formulations. These tools are optional and should complement, rather than replace, your own review and feedback from colleagues. The goal of rehearsal is not to memorize a perfect script, but to build clarity, confidence, and flexibility for both the pitch and the discussion.
Rule 9 – Prepare yourself
Having accurate information about the setting and format of your funding pitch helps avoid unforeseen disruptions and allows you to feel more confident and to focus on the presentation itself. Carefully review all instructions provided by the funding organization and clarify uncertainties in advance. This includes the exact presentation and discussion time, required or restricted content, number or format of slides, submission deadlines, technical setup, whether additional backup slides or other presentation materials are permitted.
Familiarize yourself with the practical setting whenever possible [4]. Find out whether you’ll be speaking from a lectern, standing freely, or participating online, whether the discussion will be moderated, and whether slides will be controlled by you or the organizers. If your slides must be submitted in advance, check the final version carefully and keep an additional copy available in a compatible format. In online settings, test your camera, microphone, internet connection, and screen sharing in advance. Plan sufficient time before the session and, if possible, test the technical setup under realistic conditions. For collaborative funding pitches, make sure that all presenters know the sequence, transitions, and technical procedures.
Finally, prepare yourself mentally for the presentation and discussion. Nervousness is a natural response to an important evaluation situation [9,43]. Rehearsal, familiarity with the setting, light exercise, and simple relaxation or breathing techniques can help reduce unnecessary stress [4,9,38,44]. Focus on communicating your project clearly, responding thoughtfully to the review panel, and relying on the preparation you have already completed.
Rule 10 – Deliver an effective pitch
Even the best structure and the strongest arguments can lose impact if they are delivered unclearly. When presenting your funding pitch, remember that your goal is not to perform, but to communicate clearly, confidently, and credibly to the review panel [37].
Trust your preparation. You have practiced, received feedback, and refined both your pitch and your responses to potential questions. Convey enthusiasm and authenticity, stay focused and maintain professionality during the discussion [3,42,45].
Use your voice strategically [37]. Variations in speed, volume, and pitch can emphasize key statements and help maintain attention [45]. Avoid speaking monotonously or too quickly and include short, intentional breaks in your talk to emphasize key points and to give the review panel time to process your arguments [45,46].
Make use of open and natural body language [45]. Stand stable, keep your hands visible, and use hand gestures to emphasize statements, illustrate contrasts, or enumerate arguments [8]. Moderate moving can add dynamics but avoid restless pacing. Maintain eye contact with the review panel rather than speaking to the screen or reading from your slides [7,37,44,47].
Humor may occasionally help create connection or illustrate a point, but it should be used carefully and only when appropriate for the audience, topic, and setting [48].
Above all, create coherence between your scientific argumentation, your visual presentation, your voice, and your body language [18,46].
Conclusion
Funding pitches provide applicants with an opportunity to present and discuss their proposed research as part of a competitive funding decision. Effective preparation requires more than simply condensing the written proposal into a short presentation. Applicants need to identify the aspects most relevant to the review panel, define clear key messages, explain the scientific problem and proposed approach, select strong evidence-based arguments, and organize these elements within a clear and focused structure. Visuals, voice, and body language should support the scientific message and help reviewers follow the argumentation. Moreover, the discussion is an integral part of the funding process and requires careful preparation to address questions, concerns, and critical comments professionally and confidently.
Finally, practice and constructive feedback are essential for refining both content and delivery. The ten rules presented here provide a practical and adaptable framework for preparing, rehearsing, and delivering funding pitches and for discussing the proposed project confidently and professionally with a review panel (Fig 7).
References
- 1. Wang B, Zhang X, Zhang L, Kong X-Z. A naturalistic fMRI dataset in response to public speaking. Sci Data. 2025;12(1):659. pmid:40253420
- 2. Kwok R, Kwok R, Kwok R. Two minutes to impress. Nature. 2013;494:137–8.
- 3. Caromile LA, Jha A, Gardiner JC, Dilek O, Ohi R, Ligon L. How to construct and deliver an elevator pitch: a formula for the research scientist. BMC Proc. 2024;18(Suppl 1):27. pmid:39593130
- 4. Wagner S. Science pitch. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2024.
- 5. The first passenger elevator: this day in Otis History. Available from: https://www.otis.com/en/us/news?cn=this-day-in-otis-history. 2024. Accessed 2025 May 22.
- 6. Otis history | Elevator history timeline. Available from: https://www.otis.com/en/us/our-company/history. Accessed 2025 May 28.
- 7. Alexandrov AV, Hennerici MG. How to prepare and deliver a scientific presentation: Cerebrovascular diseases. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;35:202–8.
- 8. Mayer K. Fundamentals of surgical research course: Research presentations. J Surg Res. 2005;128(2):174–7. pmid:16243041
- 9.
Zaumanis M. Scientific presentation skills: How to design effective research posters and deliver powerful academic presentations. In: Peer Recognized, editor. Independently Published; 2022.
- 10. Hutchins JA. Tailoring scientific communications for audience and research narrative. Curr Protoc Essent Lab Tech. 2020;20(1):e40. pmid:33072243
- 11. Husain M. How to write a successful grant or fellowship application. Pract Neurol. 2015;15(6):474–8. pmid:26386028
- 12. Corwin LA, Prunuske A, Seidel SB. Scientific presenting: Using evidence-based classroom practices to deliver effective conference presentations. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2018;17(1):es1. pmid:29378751
- 13. Bautista C, Alfuraiji N, Drangowska-Way A, Gangwani K, de Flamingh A, Bourne PE. Ten simple rules for improving communication among scientists. PLoS Comput Biol. 2022;18(6):e1010130. pmid:35737640
- 14. Cooke SJ, Gallagher AJ, Sopinka NM, Nguyen VM, Skubel RA, Hammerschlag N, et al. Considerations for effective science communication. FACETS. 2017;2:233–48.
- 15. Morgan WR, Wright ES. Ten simple rules for hitting a home run with your elevator pitch. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021.
- 16. Snapp EL. How to design a chalk talk-the million dollar sales pitch. Mol Biol Cell. 2019;30(13):1575–7. pmid:31194669
- 17. Covvey JR, McClendon C, Gionfriddo MR. Back to the basics: Guidance for formulating good research questions. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2024:66–9.
- 18.
Mück F. Der einfache Weg zum begeisternden Vortrag. Redline Verlag; 2016.
- 19. Krapp C, Schmermund K. Wissenschaftskonferenz: Pitch mir doch mal deine Forschung. Available from: https://www.forschung-und-lehre.de/karriere/pitch-mir-doch-mal-deine-forschung-2288. 2019. Accessed 2025 October 7.
- 20. Stuart AE. Engaging the audience: Developing presentation skills in science students. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2013;12(1):A4–10. pmid:24319389
- 21. Bourne PE. Ten simple rules for making good oral presentations. PLoS Comput Biol. 2007:593–4.
- 22. The power of storytelling in presentations. Available from: https://slidemodel.com/storytelling-presentations/. Accessed 2025 August 4.
- 23. Andrade BB. The art of storytelling in science: A personal journey. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2025;12:23821205251318188. pmid:39906290
- 24. ElShafie SJ. Making science meaningful for broad audiences through stories. Integr Comp Biol. 2018;58(6):1213–23. pmid:30059998
- 25. Joubert M, Davis L, Metcalfe J. Storytelling: The soul of science communication. J Sci Commun. 2019.
- 26. Katz Y. Against storytelling of scientific results. Nat Methods. 2013;10(11):1045. pmid:24173378
- 27. Krzywinski M, Cairo A. Points of view: Storytelling. Nat Methods. 2013;:687.
- 28. Seeman JI, Wu JI. Eureka moments shared by chemists. Hints at enhancing one’s own creativity (and even one’s joy). ACS Cent Sci. 2024;10(11):1980–96. pmid:39651428
- 29.
Humm P. Storytelling for business: How to tell stories that connect, captivate, and convince. Independently published; 2025.
- 30. Rougier NP, Droettboom M, Bourne PE. Ten simple rules for better figures. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014.
- 31. Schmied C, Nelson MS, Avilov S, Bakker G-J, Bertocchi C, Bischof J, et al. Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analyses. Nat Methods. 2024;21(2):170–81. pmid:37710020
- 32. Jambor HK. A checklist for designing and improving the visualization of scientific data. Nat Cell Biol. 2025;27(6):879–83. pmid:40514429
- 33. Kosslyn SM, Kievit RA, Russell AG, Shephard JM. PowerPoint(®) Presentation flaws and failures: A psychological analysis. Front Psychol. 2012;3:230. pmid:22822402
- 34. Naegle KM. Ten simple rules for effective presentation slides. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021.
- 35. Wagner S. Use power to get to the point with your presentation. Available from: https://redelandschaften.de/en/use-power-to-get-to-the-point-with-your-presentation/. 2022. Accessed 2025 October 7.
- 36. Jambor HK, Bornhäuser M. Ten simple rules for designing graphical abstracts. PLoS Comput Biol. 2024;20(2):e1011789. pmid:38300895
- 37. Estrada CA, Patel SR, Talente G, Kraemer S. The 10-minute oral presentation: What should I focus on? Am J Med Sci. 2005;329(6):306–9. pmid:15958872
- 38. Grambow SC, Weinfurt KP. Effective scientific presentations across formats: A modern guide for science trainees and researchers. Adv Soc Sci Res J. 2024;11(9):42–55. pmid:41583074
- 39. Lortie CJ. Ten simple rules for short and swift presentations. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017.
- 40. Wong B. Points of view: The overview figure. Nat Methods. 2011;8(5):365. pmid:21678616
- 41. Bucher H-J, Niemann P. Visualizing science: The reception of powerpoint presentations. Vis Commun. 2012;11(3):283–306.
- 42. Curran-Everett D. Every presentation is a performance. Adv Physiol Educ. 2019;43(4):519–21. pmid:31642705
- 43. Merz CJ, Hagedorn B, Wolf OT. An oral presentation causes stress and memory impairments. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2019;104:1–6. pmid:30784900
- 44. Leira EC. Tips for a successful scientific presentation. Stroke. 2019;:E228–30.
- 45. Fleming N. How to give a great talk. Nature. 2018;564:S84–5.
- 46. Rodero E. Effectiveness, attractiveness, and emotional response to voice pitch and hand gestures in public speaking. Front Commun. 2022.
- 47. Jarick M, Bencic R. Eye contact is a two-way street: Arousal is elicited by the sending and receiving of eye gaze information. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1262. pmid:31214077
- 48. Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. Advances in physiology education. 2016:433–4.