Review, Develop, & Research Services

Applying for a KAKEN Grant can feel overwhelming. Fitting your ideas into just four pages is challenging, and the review process is often subjective. In many cases, approval depends as much on how clearly and persuasively you communicate your idea as on the idea itself.

The guide below explains how KAKEN projects are evaluated and shares practical advice from past recipients that you can apply to your own proposal.

We strongly recommend starting early and asking colleagues to review your draft. Many successful applicants receive funding without paying for professional review services.

If you don’t have someone who can look over your application or if you’d like feedback from previous KAKEN recipients, you can click the button below to view our pricing. While neither peer reviews nor our reviews can guarantee acceptance, high‑quality feedback can significantly improve your chances.

Review Criteria

The criteria for the different grants are similar, but this summary focuses on 基盤研究（Ｂ・Ｃ）. The PDF this guide is based on is available here.

Stage 1: Four reviewers score independently

Scoring is based primarily on Research Plan Content and secondarily on Internationality.

Research Plan Content (Most Important)

There are three core elements:

(1) Research Significance and Importance

Reviewers ask whether your research is academically important, original, and clearly positioned in the global field.

(2) Research Methods (Feasibility & Appropriateness)

They check whether your methods, budgeting, and preparation are convincing and realistic.

(3) Research Ability and Research Environment

They judge whether you (and your environment) can actually execute the project well.

Scored 1-4

４：優れている — “Excellent”

３：良好である — “Good”

２：やや不十分である — “Somewhat insufficient”

１：不十分である — “Insufficient”

Internationality is also scored, but plays a secondary role.

４：大いに期待できる — “Highly promising”

３：期待できる — “Promising”

２：概ね期待できる — “Mostly promising”

１：あまり期待できない — “Not very promising”

Internationality is not weighted as heavily as the A-items, but still matters, especially if your field expects global contribution.

Stage‑1 Total Score Categories 

４：非常に優れている — “Extremely excellent”

３：優れている — “Excellent”

２：普通 — “Average”

１：劣っている — “Poor”

Required approximate distribution used by reviewers:

4 → 10%, 3 → 20%, 2 → 40%, 1 → 30%

 Even if many are strong, only ~10% can be “4.”

Stage 2: Final Decision Stage

Only proposals near the “cut line,” plus proposals with highly inconsistent scores, move to stage 2.

In Stage 2, reviewers choose among:

A：最優先で採択すべき — “Should be adopted with highest priority”

B：積極的に採択すべき — “Should be actively adopted”

C：採択してもよい — “May be adopted”

D：A～Cに入らないもの — “Not suitable for adoption”

The A/B/C/D mapping determines the final list depending on available funding.

Other Scoring (Not part of the main score but affects funding)

Research Budget Validity Check: 

Reviewers can mark “×” if the budget seems unreasonable.

Multiple “×” marks lead to a reduced funding level

If all reviewers mark “×”, the project is automatically rejected, regardless of the academic score.

Human subjects/ethics/other funding

Not part of scoring, but reviewers can flag problems in comments.

Serious ethical issues may affect institutional review or be reflected in feedback.

Tips

(1) Research Significance and Importance

Original doesn't mean completely novel. This should be a continuation of or connected to something you have done, as it must pursuade the reveiwers that you are able to conduct this research successfully. 

Make it clear why this is important. The outcome should be obviously stated.

Add charts and/or graphics from that previous work - charts and graphs tend to get higher points (unofficially).

(2) Research Methods (Feasibility & Appropriateness)

Do not assume that all reviewers are experts in the methods you will employ. Make sure to explain them appropriately and concisely.

Reviewers are past grant recipients in fairly wide fields. They may not be familiar with your particular subfield. You select your own field, seen here. Experts in one field may not be knowledgeable in another. Therefore, clarity with all acronyms and field-specific terms is essential. Look at the most common code for language instructors, and think about who might be reading your application　↓↓↓   . Would all those experts understand your application?

02100, Foreign Language Education, includes Learning methods, Computer-assisted learning (CALL), teaching material development, language testing, second language acquisition theory, early English education, history of foreign language education policy, curriculum evaluation, foreign language teacher training, intercultural understanding, etc. 

(3) Research Ability and Research Environment

Previous publications are very important here. If you do not have publications that support your ability to do the work, find a peer with appropriate publications to be your co-investigator. Even a peer with a different knowledge base but experience in your research methods could add confidence in your ability to complete the research.

If peers have done similar work at your institution, list those projects, as this provides evidence of a supportive environment.

If you are using existing tools you are experienced with, such as Moodle LMS, make that known. The fewer new things in the equation, the more likely the reviewers will believe you can complete the research.

Internaltionality

Make it clear again what the impact will be on Japan and what the greater impact on the world could be. Try not to make it too ridiculous that the reviewers are rolling their eyes, but realize that they are expecting something here.

Language

Applications can be submitted in both English and Japanese. However, reviewers may only be fluent in one language. Try to use language that is easy to translate. These tend to be shorter, more direct sentences. Reviewers only allot themselves so much time to rate each application, so if they do not understand a sentence (due to their own proficiency limitations or due to translation software limitations), it will result in a poor score for your proposal. This is a human-based process, so be aware of these human aspects.

BOLD  - There is no APA or other standard that must be used. Highlight the key parts of your application to make it easier for reviewers to follow.

PI and CO-I - For English applications, stay away from 'I' and 'we'. Instead, use PI for Primary Investigator and CO-I for Co-Investigator, which is already introduced in the Kaken application form.

READ - The grant application tends to change each year slightly. Read what is expected in each category within the form.

Find previously approved grants from peers for some examples. You can also see short abstracts of ongoing projects here: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/en/index/

If you would like to request peer review, or if you have any other inquiries, click on the buttons below.