COVID-19 UPDATE: All courses are currently taught remotely.

Please get in touch if you have any questions about how training from Blue Eagle Academic Services can benefit your faculty, department, school, or research group.

Demystifying EPSRC Peer Review can be accessed as a self-paced, online course. It is available for individual and group purchase: just click the button below to learn more, or send me a message if you have any questions.


Demystifying EPSRC Peer Review

This course introduces participants to the process an EPSRC grant proposal goes through from submission to funding decision. It highlights important aspects that applicants may be unaware of and explores commonly held myths about the peer review process.


It is great to know about the actual EPSRC funding process.

I think it was a well-structured and organised session. The tone was nice and informal.

Professionalism and energy of workshop lead – very informative but not overwhelmed by information – very well thought out and prepared – excellent material provided.

It felt like a safe space to ask questions on the process with informed answers that were really helpful.

AREAS OF INFLUENCE: Seven Overlooked Aspects of Writing an EPSRC Proposal

Writing a proposal for the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council can be a daunting prospect: a lot of time and energy is spent developing a project where the funding outcome is far from certain and much of it can feel outside of the Principal Investigator’s control. As a former EPSRC portfolio manager, I’m afraid there is nothing I can say to guarantee a successfully funded grant proposal … but I can discuss seven aspects of writing a proposal that are often overlooked but which can have a potential impact on your application. These include:

  • Keeping all readers of the proposal in mind: A proposal is seen by a number of people on its way to a funding decision. Ensuring that each person (portfolio manager, reviewer, panel member) is considered during the writing process can be beneficial.
  • Avoiding conflicts: PIs have the chance to nominate reviewers they believe can fairly assess their proposal. However, conflicted reviewers cannot be used, potentially wasting this opportunity.
  • Writing a strong PI response: Panel members use the reviewer comments and the PI response to determine how well a proposal meets the assessment criteria. A well-written response—one that is not angry, aggressive, arrogant, dismissive, or petty—can help a proposal move up the rank order list.

These topics and more are highlighted in this free, self-guided session.

Academic Writing Toolkit

This session helps PhD students become aware of the common problems encountered in academic writing. It provides a foundation that can be used during their dissertation and beyond, encouraging students to consider the impact of clear communication throughout their academic career.



It was a mixture of structure, planning, style, checking and motivation. I have been to other courses and they focus on one or two and it isn’t definitive. So it is effective in doing all in four hours and then a person can look into whatever they feel the need to focus on after.

The toolbox supplied by this course is extensive and helps you to develop really good habits regarding time-management, proofreading and feedback.

I liked all the ideas for improving my writing. Also the helpful tips on getting started with writing as I find that the most difficult part.

Useful advice, directly applicable examples of common mistakes, guidance on many different tasks. It was comprehensive – I cannot think of anything that wasn’t touched upon.


I am always happy to discuss creating a bespoke course based on your specific needs. Please get in touch so that we can discuss how I can best help.