Difference: DiscoveryAdvice2014 ( vs. 1)

Short summary: Do not assume that your data speaks for itself. Mediocre researchers have as many students, as many papers and as "grand" problems as good ones. To separate yourself you need to provide as much hard proof as possible that you are great. What should stand out is quality not quantity (you can't compete on quantity).

Contributions: Don't just describe what you did, but provide EXTERNAL validation (can include things outside the 6 year window): emphasize venue quality, citation counts, industry impact, awards, invited talks, and other external metrics. Mediocre researchers have as many papers as good ones and make similar claims of "my work saved the world". So you need to have external validation that YOUR work really saved it.

HQP: Do not compete on numbers, compete on quality - mention where students went, which papers they published (and why the venues they published at matter), what awards they got. If the format is as bad as this year, mention the totals - how many HQP and of which type you have, how many graduated, how many are co-supervised. Do not overinflate numbers with undergrads.

The future plans are typically very similar for everyone. What seems to stand out is mentioning specific students, re-using the space to mention past successes and anything else that makes you stand out ( cooperation with big industry/academic players?, expectation of fellowships? specialized training?).

Proposal: Use the space to again re-emphasize your contributions (connect to your work beyond the 6 years) and past HQP. Do cite others and not just yourself in the related work. Make sure to cite some easy to recognize names/venues. Methodology is key - even weak researcher propose to solve the most important world problems - the difference comes to how specialized/detailed/believable your methodology is.

-- MichielVanDePanne - 05 May 2014