Presentation at the 2016 UAE ORCID Workshop held at the American University of Sharjah (6 March 2016)

1. How can I fund my
Brilliant Ideas!
1
Martina Newell-McGloughlin
Research Division
Higher Education Sector
Abu Dhabi Education Council
(ADEC)

2. Grantsmanship Workshops
Session 1. Introduc0on, Research Ideas; Sources, Review Process
• Introduc+on; Background, What can you get from a workshop on grant wri+ng?
• Where do good ideas come from/what makes a good research idea
• How to target funding sources- responding to RFPs best matched; responding to the funders needs;
designing a project around the RFP; and ar+cula+ng the project for the sponsor.
• Short feedback session: Where do you get ideas from? What techniques do you use to archive good
ideas? What might be unique in Abu Dhabi? What are funders looking for?
• Reviewers/review process/
Session 2: Dra?ing the proposal
• Preliminaries: Read the RFP; deadlines; page limits; +ming start early; processing
• Introduc+on/abstract / Remember what, why, how
• Breakout session: cri+que abstracts provided
• Literature review/Placing proposal in context/ hypothesis driven/.
• Methodology: Detail, dealing with problems; special context, conflict of interest/consequences. Etc.
• Partnerships/collabora+ons
• Budgets, tables, figures, appendices, References
Session 3: Grant Management
• LeRer of Offer, submiUng modified workplans, Terms and condi+ons, Research Agreement
• Managing a grant v. contract, funds, annual programma+c/financial reports, audi+ng etc.
• Capturing Intellectual property, Tech Transfer
• General ques+ons, Comments/Feedback

3. What makes for a successful proposal
writer as opposed to a successful
proposal?
“It’s a foolproof formula for writing grant applications.”

4. • Research skills
• Sales capabili+es
• WriRen and oral communica+on skills
• Ingenuity and flexibility
• Administra+ve capabili+es (from leadership to accoun+ng)
• Human rela+ons skills
• Persistence, dedica+on, pa+ence, and the capacity for hard
work
• Poli+cal acumen
• Integrity
Model of a Successful Writer

5. “A successful grant proposal is one that is well-
prepared, though]ully planned and concisely
packaged”
CFDA
hRp://njms.rutgers.edu/research/orsp/DevelopingAndWri+ngGrantProposals.htm
“Seasoned grant reviewers will admit to making up
their minds on the very first page of the proposal, and
rarely change their posture as they read the rest of
the document.”
Porter, R. (2007). Why academics have a hard +me wri+ng good grant proposals. The Journal
of Research Administra+on, 38, 161-167.
What Makes for a Good
Proposal (& hopefully a
successful one!)

6. The Basic Elements of Successful
Grant Writing
• Do your homework
• Follow instruc+ons
• Use Common Sense

7. A grant proposal is a sales pitch
written to:Influence Decision makers
A winning proposal
• addresses an important ques+on with
• an innova+ve idea,
• well expressed,
• with a clear indica+on of methods
• for pursuing the idea,
• evalua+ng the findings, and making them known to all who need to
know
• If you can’t state it well, you probably can’t do the project!

8. Know your Sources
Grants Founda0ons
• Sponsor requires
progress reports
• Sponsor expects
deliverables (technical
report, evalua+on)
• Award restricts use of
results or publica+ons
• Sponsor includes “Terms
& Condi+ons” of award
• Dona+ons
• Gijs
• Support for a par+cular
ac+vity, program area or
purpose.
• May have different
expecta+on of outcome
or deliverable.

9. The Process

10. The 90% Rule of Grant-writing
• Understanding the guidelines,
instruc+ons and requirements
• Contac+ng the sponsor, whenever
appropriate
• Developing a sound project concept,
including data
• Iden+fying and correc+ng the gaps in
required informa+on
• Expanding the concept to match the
guidelines
• Iden+fying costs
• Wri+ng/submiUng the proposal
90%
10%

11. You have to play by the Rules
• Get the (most up to date) guidelines
• Read the guidelines
• Follow the guidelines
You think this is grantsmanship – it is
gamesmanship

12. • They indicate how the agency want
to see the finished proposal arrive at
their door.
• May be short, 1 page or so. Or might
be 10 pages. (Some federal
programs have almost 100 pages!)
• Access the agency guidelines and
follow them to the leRer!
What are “Guidelines”?

13. • Agency priori%es/themes—what areas they are
interested in funding
• Required components in the submission
• Format issues: Page limits, word count limits, margin
& font size limita+ons
• Budget informa+on (more on that later)
• Deadlines and format – Is a leRer of intent (LOI), or a
preproposal required, is it limited submission - are
they selec+ve, binding-
• Online, hard copy or email; postmark or receipt;
(don’t forget +me zones!)
Guidelines usually include:

14. Nuts and Bolts of a typical proposal
Component Answers the Ques0on
Cover Sheet Who are we?
Table of Contents What’s in the proposal?
Abstract What’s the big picture?
Problem/Challenge Statement Why should we do this now?
Goals/Aims What are we trying to accomplish?
Measurable Objec+ves What will be different?
Procedures/ac+vi+es/workplans What exactly are we going to do, when and how?
Evalua+on How will we know if our idea works?
Dissemina+on Who else will benefit? How will we share data?
Facili+es Do we have the necessary tools/resources/capacity?
Personnel Who are the players and what are their roles?
Biographical Sketch S+ck to the required format
Budget What does it actually cost and can it be jus+fied?
References What is the prior art?
Appendices Make sure allowed and add not distract from the case?

15. Getting started!

16. • Needs, significance
• Problem statement/Hypotheses
• Objec+ves
• Methods, work plan, ac+vi+es
• Evalua+on
• Dissemina+on
• Budget, then budget jus+fica+on
• Introduc+on
• Literature cited
• Forms
• Summary/Abstract
• ARachments, Biosketch/Vita – if allowed
Sequence for Proposal Development

17. • Copy/paste the agency’s heading into your Word doc to guide your
work.
• Start with describing your need, the significance of the problem,
issue, project
• A project is significant if it, for example,:
• Solves a problem/challenge
• Creates new and important knowledge
• Creates a model
• Improves the human condi+on
• Improves a scien+fic technique
Create a template

18. Keep in Mind
• Establish a +meline for comple+on of the proposal - Be realis+c about the work
involved and the +me you have to complete the work -Work backwards from the
due date, being sure to include +me to get all the approvals you’ll need
• Iden+fy the primary writer and the role of the other colleagues, partners, and
collaborators
• You are wri+ng for the reviewers, not for a journal
• Write to the guidelines, don’t leave out anything even if you think it is irrelevant
• Follow the guidelines even if they don’t “flow” as you would like
• Page limits and deadlines are “set in stone”
• Iden+fy the suppor+ng data you will need
• Get to know the funding team and always ask for help, clarifica+on

19. • Take sufficient +me to prepare a good abstract, LOI, or pre- proposal
• Must be interes+ng and understandable to a broadly-trained audience
• Clear communica+on - don’t get lost in the details
• Avoid the use of jargon and acronyms
• Include flow charts/ diagrams/GANTT charts/models/figures to illustrate
the problem, aims, process – a picture paints (10)3words!
• Always include a budget and budget jus+fica+on
• Be careful when/where you cut and paste: assure uniformity of font size
and type
• ALWAYS use a reviewer and get editorial assistance
Keep in Mind

20. • Clear communica+on
• Concisely worded
• Easy and interes+ng to read
• Avoid fuzzy or inappropriate use of words:
The intrinsic labyrinth of wires must be first
disentangled. The liquid contents of container should
then be disgorged via the spout by the operator.
Don’t annoy the reviewers
What is the writer really saying?
From Grant Resource Training, 2006

21. The intrinsic
labyrinth of wires
must be first
disentangled. The
liquid contents of
container should
then be disgorged
via the spout by the
operator.
Disconnect
the wires and
pour the
contents
into…
From Grant Resource Training, 2006
Transla+on

22. • Disturb/Irritate
• Spelling errors
• Overusing technical terms
• Using acronyms
• Confuse
• Wri+ng overly complex sentences
• Failing to aRend to paragraph coherence issues
• Using passive voice
• Including non-parallel lists
• Diminish Credibility
• Failing to address criteria
• Abstract, problem statement, budget disconnect
• Failing to address assessment and administra+on
• Including extraneous informa+on
Don’t annoy the reviewers
From Grant Resource Training, 2006

23. Academic vs. Grant writing
Academic wri0ng Grant wri0ng
• Scholarly pursuit:
• Individual passion
• Past oriented:
• Work that has been done
• Theme-centered:
• Theory and thesis
• Expository rhetoric:
• Explaining to reader
• Sponsor goals:
• Service AUtude
• Future oriented:
• Work that should be done
• Project-centered:
• Objec+ves and ac+vi+es
• Persuasive rhetoric:
• “selling the reader”
From: Porter, R. (2007). Why academics have a hard time writing good grant
proposals. The Journal of Research Administration, 38, 161-167.

24. Academic vs. Grant writing
Academic wri0ng Grant wri0ng
• Impersonal tone:
• Objec+ve, dispassionate
• Individualis+c:
• Primarily a solo ac+vity
• Few length constraints
• Verbosity rewarded
• Specialized terminology
• “insider jargon”
• Personal tone:
• Conveys excitement
• Team-focused:
• Feedback needed
• Strict length constraints:
• Brevity rewarded
• Accessible language:
• Easily understood
• (who are reviewers?)
From: Porter, R. (2007). Why academics have a hard time writing good grant
proposals. The Journal of Research Administration, 38, 161-167.

25. • It may be short, but it must convey the intent
• Reviewers read it first. You need to grab their aRen+on
• Should be brief—200 words/1 page
• It appears first, but it should be wriRen LAST
The Abstract

26. The Abstract should answer the basic
questions:
• What: Topic of project, goals, objec+ves. What do you intend to do?
• Why: Problem/Issue to be addressed. Why is the work important?
• How: Methods, procedures. How are you going to do the work?
• Who: Target, group served or studied
• When: Project dates, dura+on
• So what: Significance, outcomes expected

27. Narrative, Project
Description
• And yet again - Read the guidelines!
• Length: # pages, single/double spaced?
• Determines how much space to use for the literature review,
descrip+on of need/problem, explana+on of methodology
• 3 pages, 6 pages, 1800 words.
• Need/Significance, Literature Review, Gaps, Objec+ves,
Ac+vi+es, Evalua+on
• Descrip+on of researcher/creden+als
• Meet review criteria
• Write clearly
• Address agency priori+es! (Ref AARE!)

28. A2RE’s Targeted Call
The Award
• The A2RE will fund awards ranging from 200,000AED to
400,000AED. All Higher Education Institutions in the
Emirate of Abu Dhabi were eligible to submit proposals.
Expenditure must be within Abu Dhabi.
Sectors
• The awards were targeted to sectors of strategic
importance to Abu Dhabi, with specific emphasis on themes
• Science Technology Engineering – Four Themes
• (Water, Energy, Environment), (Material Sciences, Infrastructure,
Aerospace) (ICT, Electronics), (Health, Food and Agriculture)
• Education (Technology, Policy, Pedagogy)
• Social Sciences and Humanities28

29. • Proposals should include only the following information. Proposals must be formatted
in Times New Roman, Calibri or Arial, 12 point font and single spaced with no less than
one inch margins.
• Introductory Information
i Host institution proposal cover sheet listing Sector for submission (signed original).
i Table of contents (maximum one page).
• Main Proposal Contents
1 Executive summary in lay language (max half page/15 lines).
2 Grants management plan. Include details of collaboration if appropriate (max one page).
3 Research plan. What is the question to be investigated, what is the significance and the specific
aims and objectives? What research has already been conducted by the applicant in this area and
what is novel in this proposal? How will the question be addressed, i.e work plan, milestones, and
deliverables? What is the strategic value and impact especially for Abu Dhabi? If there is
collaboration, how will it add value? (max 8 pages including figures, tables).
4 References. Most relevant to the proposal (max one page)
5 Resource development and technology transfer. Address human resource development,
commercialisation potential, building competence in the technology area, dissemination of
knowledge developed to industry and/or society (max two pages)
6 Description of metrics of success including milestones, timeline and critical factors to
demonstrate success (max one page)
7 Host institution infrastructure. Identify the infrastructure, facilities, services and space to be
provided by host institution (max one page).
8 Budget & Justification. Provide justification for salaries, travel and equipment (max two pages)
9 Research track record. CVs of lead researchers and collaborators (if applicable) including
position, achievements, current and pending research support and most relevant publications in
the field (max four pages per CV). You may provide a url link for additional online CV details.
The ADEC Award for Research Excellence

30. Objectives
• S – Specific
• M – Measurable outcomes
• A – Achievable, attainable
• R – Realistic
• T – Time-bound, achievable
in a specified time period
• Overall concept, more global
• Broad statement of what you want
to accomplish
Goals

31. • Links Between Ac+ons to be Taken and Statement of Problem
• Each ac+on should link the proposed solu+on to the problem
• Should be mapped to the Objec+ves
• Explain how project will accomplish the objec+ves
• Discuss ONLY those ac+ons that support an objec+ve
• Fully describe the work to be done in the project
• One or more ac+vi+es/workplans for each objec+ve
• Specify:
• Who will do them
• When they will be done
• How they will be accomplished
• Why you chose this approach
• What other methods were available
• How long each ac+vity will take
Activities, Action Steps

32. • Clear Objec+ves and Ac+vi+es leads to an Evalua+on Plan—how are
you going to know you accomplished what you set out to do?
• Funders want to be able to determine if their money has been well
spent.
• How well you measure
• if the program achieved its goal?
• Did the project meet its objec0ves?
• Were project ac0vi0es/workplans implemented as planned?
• How effec+ve were the ac+vi+es in achieving the objec+ves?
Evaluation

33. Budget
• It’s not how much money you want, it’s how
much the project costs.
• Jus+fica+on is Key

34. Budget Strategy
• Envision what your project needs to make it a reality
• A cost must be reasonable and jus+fiable
• Reviewers emphasize project quality over budget BUT the agency and/or board
absolutely will be scru+nizing budget!
• Follow sponsor and ins+tu+onal guidelines and policies
• items agency will fund—items they will NOT fund
• level they will fund—don’t propose a budget over the level (it will most likely be rejected)
• number of years they will fund
• Outline the budget in the format the agency requests
• If the project is over several years, build in cost increases
• Develop a budget explana+on to delineate clearly how budget figures were computed
• Ensure that the budget coincides with the narra+ve and falls within the +me-frame
allowed
• When in doubt, ask!

35. • Harry Frank Guggenheim Founda+on: “And if you submit a budget
that contradicts any of these carefully described guidelines, we will
have reason to think of you as a careless reader and thoughtless
applicant. This will inevitably be reflected in our es+ma+on of the
poten+al of your scholarship.”
• hRp://hfg.org/rg/budge+ng.htm
When it comes to budget, some
agencies are more explicit than
others!

36. Letters: (IF allowed by the
agency)
LeRers of Support LeRers of Commitment
• LeRer writer advocates for
your project
• Referred to in the text, put
in appendix
• How does the project fit
with the mission/goals of
the organiza+on
• Presents type of support
• Evidence of interest in the
project from par+cipants
• If the project is funded,
they are ready with their
contribu+on
• What they will contribute
• They will par+cipate at the
+me you need them

37. Submitting a Proposal
and the “Reviewers”
- Internal review process
- Who will review your grant proposal?
- What if it’s rejected?

38. Institutional review process
• Except in very rare cases, proposals must normally be reviewed by
your VPR, OSP before submission to the funding agency.
• When a proposal is submiRed to a funding agency, a legal agreement is
created between the agency and the submiUng ins+tu+on.
• Consequently, ins+tu+onal review is required to ensure that the proposed
research ac+vity is in line with the ins+tu+on’s mission and abili+es.
• The Ins+tu+on not the PI is the signatory
• Funding agencies normally require proposals to be endorsed by someone who has the
legal authority to commit the ins+tu+on to carry out the proposed work.
• They also normally require the individual approving the proposal to make a number of
representa+ons and/or cer+fica+ons as part of the submission process.
• Authorizing signatory: Director of Sponsored Projects, VP of Research & Graduate
Studies, and other upper administra+on (including the President on rare occasions when
the agency specifies).

39. External Review Process:
Know who your reviewers are
• Agency guidelines contain Review Criteria
• Peer reviewed
• Panel reviewed
• Staff review
• Board review
• It is OK to ask them not to send a proposal to a par+cular
person (must be carefully jus+fied)
• It’s okay to recommend reviewers
• Be aware of points assigned to proposal sec+ons.

40. Remember you are writing for your
Reviewers
• Don’t assume readers/
reviewers know the subject as
well as you do, but don’t go
overboard.
• Use the agencies Subject
Headings for review criteria!
Don’t make them hunt for the
“Significance.”
• The most important rule to
keep in mind:
• Don’t annoy the reviewers!

41. 41
Topic Ques0ons
Research quality § Does the project descrip+on demonstrate that the project will lead to progress in the field, innova+on and
originality?
§ Does the project descrip+on show a well-defined challenge?
§ Does the project represent new approaches rather than incremental change?
§ Is the descrip+on of the state-of–the-art in the area up to date and convincing
§ Where there is collabora+on, are the research elements coherent?
Project descrip0on and
resources
§ Is the grant management structure adequate?
§ Is the proposed work well set out with milestones and expected deliverables?
§ Are the costs reasonable and eligible?
§ Is there clarity on the management structures to oversee the project?
§ Have sufficient resources been dedicated to the project?
§ Is there sufficient access to necessary research infrastructure?
§ Where there is collabora+on is there a convincing case for the added value?
Track record § Does the applicant’s research record (including publica+ons/grant procurement) give confidence that he/she
can successfully undertake the project?
Strategic importance § Does the project fall within an area that will underpin development of key sectors in Abu Dhabi in the future?
§ Is there proposed industry engagement (where relevant)?
§ What is the likely impact on society and the local economy?
Human capital § Are there training/mentoring opportuni+es for Emira+s
Budget § Is the budget appropriate for the proposed project?
Matching Funds
(Preferable but not
essen0al)
§ Does the ins+tu+on provide matching funds or in-kind support?
§ Are there matching funds or in-kind support from industry or other sources?
Addi0onal considera0ons
(may count towards final
ranking)
§ Is the proposal inter-ins+tu+onal?
§ Is the proposal mul+disciplinary – eg engineering/biology; social science/science?
§ Is there a STEM outreach component?
AARE Review Criteria

42. Avoid automatic rejection
Pay aRen+on to No+ces !
“Proposals not in compliance with any details or guidelines specified in
this RFP or agency Terms and Condi+ons will not be eligible for an
award and will not be sent for review”
Examples include:
• FormaUng issues (going over page, word, or line limits)
• SubmiUng a proposal over the budget ceiling
• Deadline issues (Online? Do +me zones maRer? Postmark/receipt?)
• SubmiUng a proposal outside agency interests or not addressing
targeted call (for example, a health-related proposal to NSF)

43. Some Characteristics of Well-written, Fundable
Proposals
• Innova+ve, Direct, concise, compelling, convincing,
capable, enthusias+c and resourceful
• Relevant Addresses a significant/important problem
• Demonstrated Competence/exper+se of PI and team
• Explicit goals, measurable objec+ves
• Comprehensive but succinct background review
• Methodology fits problem
• Appropriate funding mechanism
• Achievable with funding level and within +me
schedule

44. Some Reasons for an Unsuccessful
Proposal
• Project doesn’t address agency priori+es
• Guidelines not followed
• Not a compelling idea
• Ideas not clearly presented
• Methodology appears to be flawed
• Overuse of jargon
• Overly ambi+ous
• Narra+ve and budget don’t correspond
• Sloppy presenta+on
• Proposers not Qualified
• The work has already been done

45. How to manage your review!

46. If your proposal is rejected. . .
• Don’t give up!
• Pay close aRen+on to
cri+ques
• Talk to agency contact
• Re-evaluate, revise and
resubmit
• Look for other poten+al
funders

47. Release
Call (Sept
29)
Call
Deadline
(Oct 29)
Review Recommenda0ons Decision/ Outcome Post Award
Administra0on
Timeline
Approval received
from DG to progress
and reassign funds
Compliance
Review
Ac0ons
Finalized
Call for
Proposals
Actual Timeline for “The ADEC Award for Research Excellence” (A2RE)
Logged and compiled
*almost 250 received
from 18 HEIs with over
500 par0cipa0ng
researchers over AED 80
million requested
Check for compliance,
completeness,
appropriateness
Unqualified/non-
compliant
proposals triaged
218 sent out for review to
97 reviewers with domain
exper0se across all
sectors and disciplines
“The ADEC Award for
Research
Excellence” (A2RE)
Reviews returned
Submit qualified
for review
Compile reviews
and submit to panel in
anonymously ranked
order
Panel Review within
three categories STE
(Top ranked considered
with 20/24 to be
funded within themes)
Educa0on(Top ranked
considered 4/6 to fund)
SS(Top ranked
considered 4/6 to fund)
Rank outcome
within three pools
Fund 100%
Fund 90%
Fund 85%
Not approved
Condi0onal
LeRer of Offer
LoO
Feedback to
unapproved
Post award
assessment, QC,
repor0ng
Appropriate funds
Work with
procurement and legal
to establish a targeted
call
Decide review
process
Prepare grant
documents (RFP,
submission process,
evalua0on forms, etc)
Liaise with HEIs to
inform of upcoming
call
Refine compila0on of
reviewers (>100)
Consider panel
recommenda0ons
and decide on awards –
34 chosen- 24 STE -
6 Edu- 4SS
Get approval from DG on
final awards
Set up infrastructure
for pre and post
award management
Develop preliminary
compila0on of
reviewer database
Process
Sept 1 Sept 29 Oct 29 Nov16 Nov 19 Dec
Working with Procurement/Finance on
Managing award process and
Post Award Administra0on
Policy
Timeline
Requested approval
from DG to progress
Crea0on of A2RE and
reassign funds
Got approval for
1. Award disbursement
400K for STE, 200K for
Edu, SS
2. Reviewer compensa0on
3. Local review commiRee
4. Assembly of external
reviewers database
Worked with Procurement/
Finance on mechanism to
award funds
Developed documenta0on
on award announcement and
funds management
Sept Oct Nov
5

48. Finding Funding
Opportunities
- IRIS/GrantForward
- GrantSearch
- Founda+on Directory—Library

49. Use Databases (-- Funding Databases) to locate informa+on
regarding:
• Founda+ons
• Federal agencies
• Corporate founda+ons
• Professional organiza+ons
Listservs (Federal, state, Founda+on Center RFP Bulle+n)
Facebook (yes, Founda+ons have FB pages)
RSS feeds (the Founda+on Center’s Philanthropy News
Digest, for example).
LinkedIn
Finding Funding Sources

50. Finding Funding
• Horizon 20/20 (EU)
hRps://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/
• US: hRps://www.grants.gov
• State: IRIS/GrantForward or agency websites
• Founda+ons -- Founda+on Center:
• Founda+on Directory
• Founda+on Finder
• NewsleRers (Arts, Educa+on, and Health funding)
• IRIS/GrantForward (Federal, state, founda+on)
• GrantSearch (Federal, state, founda+on)

51. • Look at an agencies previous grantees
• Annual reports
• Lis+ng on website
• If reques+ng a brochure (rare with most founda+ons
having websites, but possible), request a list of previous
grantees.
• Look at others’ +tles, how much money they were
awarded, Abstracts if available.
• Look at other ins+tu+ons—where are they receiving
money from. Agencies/Founda+ons do have geographic
restric+ons.
Final Thoughts

52. hRp://www.amazon.com/The-Grant-Writers-Handbook-Research/dp/
1783267593
hRp://www.in4grants.com/webinars.php
hRp://www.infoready4.com/
Robert Porter, Why academics have a hard time writing good grant
proposals. The Journal of Research Administration, 38, 161-167. 2007
Writing Grant Proposals That Win. Edited by Deborah Ward. Sudbury,
MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2006.
Jeremy T Miner and Lynn E. Miner. Models of Proposal Planning &
Writing. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005.
John W. Cresswell. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994.
Lawrence F. Locke, Waneen Wyrick Spirduso and Stephen J. Silverman.
Proposals that Work: A guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant
Proposals (4th Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000.
Arlene Fink. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From Paper to
Internet. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998.
Liane Reif-Lehrer. Grant Application Writers Handbook (4th Ed.) Sudbury,
MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2005.
Proposal wri0ng resources

54. Dr. Karen Kelsky of The Professor Is
In, hRp://theprofessorisin.com).
A testament to academic hubris;)