





































 V38 N1 / 2023 

©2023 American Medical Writers Association. All rights reserved.  
ISSN 2163-5315

AMWAJournal.org     40

Common Grantsmanship Hurdles of Early Career Clinician-Scientists 
and How a Medical Writer Can Help

ABSTRACT 
Researchers with medical training and clinical experi-
ence bring essential perspectives to academic medicine. 
Compared with their nonclinician, PhD-trained peers, cli-
nician-scientists typically have less training in grant writ-
ing, and their time for this work is even more constrained. 
Medical writers can help clinician-scientists understand 
and fulfill the expectations of funding organizations and 
review panels, and ultimately, help them compete more 
successfully for funding. Based on the literature and per-
sonal experience in this role, I propose 4 grantsmanship 
hurdles that often confront clinician-scientists: (1) iden-
tifying funding opportunities that fit, (2) mastering the 
unique language and integrated narrative style of a compel-
ling grant proposal, (3) turning ancillary documents from 
drudgery into assets, and (4) shedding the “bunker mental-
ity.” This article surveys practical strategies by which med-
ical writers can foster time efficiency, mitigate experience 
gaps, and help clinician-scientists develop persuasive grant 
proposals effectively tailored to the relevant audience.

Medically-trained faculty at academic medical centers play 
essential roles in the advancement of biomedical research. 
Clinician-scientists bring the perspective to recognize 
knowledge gaps that impede progress in patient care and 
translation of discoveries to the clinic. Although they are 
well-positioned to enroll patients and coordinate clinical 
trials, early career clinician-scientists often receive min-
imal training in crucial research and grant writing skills 
and have heavy clinical duties that dominate their time. 
Although junior faculty can seek didactic research training, 
it is often more effective and efficient for them to consult a 
medical writer with expertise in writing and grantsmanship. 
Some academic institutions employ such consultants under 
job titles such as grant writer, scientific editor, or medical 
writer.1 An individual investigator might engage a freelance 
writer for similar support. This article discusses several 
grant writing hurdles facing clinician-scientists and details 

tools and strategies by which a medical writer can help 
them clear the hurdles and gain professional skills.

CLINICIAN-SCIENTISTS
Clinician-scientists are biomedical researchers who have 
formal training and credentials in a clinical discipline. 
Although many clinician-scientists are physicians, the cat-
egory also includes pharmacists, nurses, advanced practice 
providers, dentists, dietitians, and other medical profes-
sionals. Clinician-scientists are sometimes categorized by 
how much of their professional effort is spent in clinical prac-
tice compared with research.2 The diverse backgrounds, job 
descriptions, and goals of clinician-scientists correspond 
with diverse funding objectives. Those with a primary focus 
on research usually pursue federal funding along a proto-
typical path that aims for mentored career development 
grants (eg, National Institutes of Health [NIH] K awards), then 
research project grants large enough to support a research 
laboratory or larger clinical trials (eg, NIH R or U awards).3 
Others see themselves as clinicians first and have a comple-
mentary research portfolio that can be integrated with their 
clinical practice.2,4,5 Critical funding for these individuals may 
come from subcontracts on federal grants, industry sponsor-
ship of multisite clinical studies, or small grants from founda-
tions, professional societies, or intramural funds.
 Regardless of career trajectory, early career clinician-sci-
entists face 2 particularly difficult headwinds. First, clini-
cians who assume junior faculty positions often start with 
limited research mentorship and hands-on research expe-
rience.5-7 In the sphere of grant writing, they may be unfa-
miliar with the structures, norms, and vocabulary that more 
experienced researchers take for granted. A clinician devel-
oping a grant might need guidance on how the review pro-
cess works so that they can write with the true audience in 
mind. Second, clinical duties increasingly dominate their 
time,4 so clinicians with thriving research programs often 
rely on a cast of trusted collaborators and team members 
working around them. A medical writer with expertise in 
grant writing who fosters effective communication and  

Matthew R. Sandbulte, PhD   /  Child Health Research Institute at Children’s Hospital & Medical Center and the 
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE

TOPICAL FEATURE

http://www.amwajournal.org


AMWAJournal.org     41Grantsmanship Hurdles of Early Career Clinician-Scientists and How a Medical Writer Can Help

efficiency is an invaluable addition to these teams and can 
help clinician-scientists capitalize on scarce research time.

GRANTSMANSHIP HURDLES FOR CLINICIAN-
SCIENTISTS
Most grant writing challenges common among early career 
clinician-scientists are also familiar obstacles for their 
PhD-trained peers, so the advice offered here might help a 
researcher in either category. However, training gaps and 
patient care duties for clinician-scientists often accentuate 
the following hurdles. By helping them clear these hurdles, 
medical writers can foster both professional achievement 
and progress in medicine.

Hurdle 1: Identifying Funding Opportunities That Fit
Funding agencies post funding opportunity announce-
ments (FOAs) using a variety of channels, and the window 
of time between the FOA and submission deadline can be 
as short as several weeks. Investigators who passively wait 
for relevant opportunities to present are prone to discover-
ing them too late or not at all. Medical writers can assist by 
designing a robust search strategy, of the sources below and 
others, and perhaps even take responsibility for maintaining 
the search and alerting their clinician-scientist colleague(s) 
to possible matches.

Federal Funding Agencies
FOAs for federal grants are relatively easy to track because 
sponsors disseminate them through well-maintained Web 
resources. The comprehensive database at Grants.gov is pop-
ulated with links to FOAs from NIH, the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, other arms of the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of 
Defense, and other agencies with missions extending widely 
across medicine and beyond. Search filters allow users to 
focus on chosen agencies, funding categories, dates, and 
other variables. NIH- and HHS-sponsored opportunities 
also appear in the dedicated NIH database at NIH.gov, 
which features more agency-specific search and filter func-
tionality; for example, you can filter results by activity code 
(eg, K08, R01) or by institute. In either of these databases, 
the Save Search function allows the user to set up auto-
mated email alerts about relevant FOAs in the future.

Private Funding Agencies
Societies and foundations represent the spectrum of clin-
ical disciplines, medical conditions, and patient advocacy 
themes, and they issue a vast range of FOAs. Although many 
of these FOAs are relevant to clinician-scientists, their con-
figuration and dissemination vary widely. Some private 
grant programs are offered on a regular annual or semian-

nual cycle, but in many cases the timing is unpredictable or 
a specific FOA happens only once. Because these FOAs are 
invariably posted on the respective organization’s website, 
clinician-scientists or a medical writer could proactively 
monitor the websites of relevant organizations for new 
FOAs. A few such organizations simplify this task by offering 
an electronic mailing list. However, neither method is very 
efficient if an investigator needs to monitor multiple organi-
zations, or if a medical writer is assisting multiple investiga-
tors at once.

One-Stop Solutions
Clinician-scientists and their grant writing consultants who 
are interested in diverse funding sources should consider 
accessing a subscription-based, comprehensive grants data-
base (Table 1). These continually capture new opportunities 
from thousands of private funding organizations, federal 
and state government agencies, and international entities. 
Search filters and periodic email alerts make it possible to 
track opportunities in any sector that match an investiga-
tor’s research interests and project parameters (eg, submis-
sion deadline, budget size, geographic focus). Investigators 
or consultants can begin by checking what access they may 
already have through institutional subscriptions. Individual 
subscriptions to some of these services are also available.

Hurdle 2: Mastering the Unique Language and 
Integrated Narrative Style of a Compelling Grant 
Proposal
Clinician-scientists tend to be goal driven and action ori-
ented. In the process of developing a research proposal 
they are generally most comfortable explaining their plan 
to attain new knowledge and drive clinical innovation. Less 
intuitive for the grant writing novice are how to craft the 
multiple application sections in a way that inspires urgency 
about a stated knowledge gap, curiosity about the scien-
tific hypothesis, and confidence in the applicant’s capac-
ity to achieve the objectives. In most successful grants, 
these pieces all begin to crystallize in the specific aims page 
and are emphasized in each subsequent section. A medi-

Table 1. Subscription-Based Grants Databases

Database Name Web URL
Individual  
Subscriptions

Funding Institutional fundinginstitutional.com

GrantForward grantforward.com

GrantScape thegrantscape.com √
GrantSelect grantselect.com √
Pivot-RP pivot.proquest.com

SPIN spin.infoedglobal.com

http://www.amwajournal.org
https://www.grants.gov/
https://www.fundinginstitutional.com/
https://www.grantforward.com
https://www.thegrantscape.com/
https://www.grantselect.com/
https://pivot.proquest.com/
https://spin.infoedglobal.com


AMWAJournal.org     42Grantsmanship Hurdles of Early Career Clinician-Scientists and How a Medical Writer Can Help

cal writer can help the clinician-scientist ensure that these 
facets are consistently, concisely, and effectively conveyed 
throughout the full proposal.
 Medical journals have recently published several excel-
lent articles that speak specifically to clinicians about writ-
ing effective grant proposals.8-16 These are easy resources to 
share with investigators, and medical writers can mine the 
articles for new ideas and language that might resonate with 
investigators who are getting used to this genre. In one arti-
cle that focuses on how to write an effective specific aims 
page, Monte et al10 argue that a grant proposal is equivalent 
to a business pitch:

We define the goal of grant writing as gaining finan-
cial sponsorship for planned work; like sales, a proposal 
requires marketing, tailoring, and a value proposition… 
The aims page is the point of sale for planned science and 
is written with the goal of research sponsorship.

 These authors describe their formula for writing a per-
suasive specific aims proposition in 4 paragraphs from 
defining a critical need to demonstrating the potential 
return on investment. Two other articles also dissect the 
specific aims page, offering similar instruction and borrow-
ing colorful idioms from humanities and mathematics.8,14 
Certain articles contain rubrics for objective evaluation of a 
specific aims page that may be valuable tools for a consult-
ing medical writer.8,10

 This “make the sale” mindset is beneficial throughout 
the grant writing process. Reviewers are drawn to a grant 
proposal if it convinces them that (1) the investigator has 
delineated an urgent problem, (2) they have an innova-
tive and scientifically credible idea to address the problem, 
(3) the proposed plans are well designed to test the great 
idea, and (4) the investigative team and research environ-
ment display the capacity to execute the plan. Each of these 
parts is fulfilled through multiple sections of the applica-
tion (Figure). A clinician-scientist may feel most engaged 
and confident in describing the core idea or innovative ele-
ments of their plan, whereas certain sections (eg, budget, 
biographical sketches) may seem like mere boxes to check. 
However, a medical writer who helps them integrate all 4 
major elements improves the probability of an outstanding 
impact score from the review panel.
 For an inexperienced applicant who lacks fluency in 
the jargon and expectations of grants, the instructions and 
review criteria found in an FOA are often opaque. A medi-
cal writer can help not only by decoding the requirements 
but by checking the application against the FOA for com-
pleteness and fulfillment of the specified review criteria 
(“responsiveness”). A simple way to help the clinician-sci-
entist stay on track is to create a checklist early in the writing 

process and keep it updated as a dashboard while complet-
ing the application. The AMWA Member Resource Library 
features a template for a detailed grant checklist and sched-
ule of milestones.17

Hurdle 3: Turning Ancillary Documents From Drudgery 
Into Assets
For some clinician-scientists, the list of required support-
ing documents is a daunting barrier. Often, an investigator 
either spends many precious hours producing these from 
scratch or hurriedly produces subpar documents that likely 
dampen reviewers’ confidence. A medical writer can help 
elevate the application by introducing resources that lighten 
the investigator’s learning curve and boost document qual-
ity. Sometimes useful tools are readily available, and we 
may just need to point the investigator in the right direc-
tion. For example, the National Center for Biotechnology 
Information provides a free online app called SciENcv, 
which helps investigators build a complete and compliant 
NIH-style biosketch.18

 Another way to help address this barrier is by encour-
aging smart use of institutional boilerplate text. Many 
universities seek to help their investigators with grant appli-
cations by maintaining boilerplate that describes facili-
ties, resources, expertise, and administrative structures. 
Although these resources can be a good building block, 
beware of 2 possible flaws.
 First, watch for text that has grown stale after a couple 
of years on the shelf, both to eliminate outdated informa-
tion and to ensure inclusion of newer resources. If the cli-
nician-scientist is unsure about key details, reach out to the 
relevant core facility or office to ask for a fresh review of the 
information. A medical writer employed at an academic 
institution can benefit all affiliated investigators by  
maintaining a current boilerplate library.

Figure. Four main elements of a grant proposal that the investigator 
must illustrate for reviewers. Multiple sections of the proposal  
combine to build confidence in each element.

PROBLEM
Scientific literature
Standard of care
Knowledge gap

CAPACITY
Personnel / Biosketches
Facilities
Equipment
Letters of Support

GREAT IDEA
Aims / Hypotheses
Preliminary data

PLAN
Approach
Innovation
Budget
Human / Animal

http://www.amwajournal.org


AMWAJournal.org     43Grantsmanship Hurdles of Early Career Clinician-Scientists and How a Medical Writer Can Help

 Second, no matter how complete and current the infor-
mation is, applicants should not simply copy unmodified 
generic boilerplate text into an application. Coherence 
among the many pieces of an application signals to review-
ers that the investigator has given careful thought to every-
thing that needs to work together to achieve the research 
aims. Therefore, resources that have no relevance should be 
deleted, and the generic text should be enriched with tai-
lored sentences or phrases that emphasize relevance to the 
project (Table 2).

mentality by encouraging them to seek the following kinds 
of feedback.
 Program officers working in the NIH institutes are 
known for the constructive advice they offer investiga-
tors. They are often helpful in identifying programs and 
study panels in which a research idea would find its best 
fit, sharing the upcoming release of new FOAs, explaining 
the grant review processes, and decoding reviewers’ cri-
tiques.21 In most cases, an NIH FOA lists contact informa-
tion for the appropriate program officer(s). Alternatively, 

a great resource for identifying program officers 
(as well as institutes and review panels) rele-
vant to the clinician-scientist’s project idea is the 
Matchmaker search tool at the Research Portfolio 
Online Reporting Tools website.22 Although pro-
gram staff in other agencies or organizations may 
be less visible, it is worth trying to identify them 
for similar assistance. An investigator should ini-
tiate the conversation about their proposal con-
cept by email, share a draft of the specific aims, 
and propose setting up a call or virtual meeting 
for feedback. Many clinician-scientists seem ret-
icent to reach out for this help; a writing consul-
tant can provide critical assistance in facilitating 
this process and eliciting valuable feedback.

Peers and colleagues are an invaluable 
source of grant feedback for investigators at any 
career stage. Fellow researchers can provide 

insight from various angles, such as: Has the investiga-
tor made a persuasive argument for an important knowl-
edge gap that must be filled? Does the proposed approach 
stand up to technical scrutiny? How well does the proposal 
address review criteria found in the FOA? Medical writers 
bring legitimate insight into these questions as well, but 
peers can take it to an important next level. Sometimes part 
of our role is to encourage seeking that help from a couple 
of trusted individuals and plan it into the writing timeline.
 Many institutions seek to elevate the presubmission 
grant review process by organizing internal mock review 
panels often targeted toward their junior faculty and train-
ees.23,24 Not only does this facilitate feedback from 4 or 
5 reviewers at once, but it also introduces the dynamic 
of a live panel discussion. Data collected at one institu-
tion demonstrated the effectiveness of internal review for 
increasing success of submissions to NIH.24 The greatest 
challenge in leveraging this resource is proactive plan-
ning. An investigator must request review by a mock panel 
and supply a draft of at least the specific aims page, several 
weeks before the funding agency’s deadline. When such an 
opportunity exists, medical writers should encourage work-
ing far enough ahead to secure this assistance.

Table 2. Examples of Tailoring Verbiage to a Specific Proposal

Grant Section
Points of  
Emphasis Tailored Sentence Example

Facilities/ 
Resources

Access, 
relevance

Dr Smith has an agreement with the 
Gait Analysis Lab to support monitoring 
participants’ fluidity of motion post-
surgery (see letter of support).

Equipment Location,
features,
purpose

The PI’s division houses a PET/CT scanner 
(make/model) with respiratory and cardiac 
gating to reconstruct phase-matched 
images. It will be used to screen study 
enrollees for lung cancer recurrence. 

Biosketch– 
personal 
statement

Commitment,
role

As a co-investigator, I will coordinate 
the key informant interviews in Aim 2, 
to include securing IRB approval and 
ensuring protocol-adherent interviews, 
transcription, and coding. 

PI, principal investigator; PET/CT, positron emission tomography/computed tomography

 An excellent way to demystify the components of a com-
plete application is to provide examples of proposals that were 
funded in the past. Ideally, an investigator has men-
tors who will share recent grants as models. A staff medical 
writer can facilitate the sharing process by gathering and 
managing a small library of model proposals from willing 
faculty. Furthermore, multiple NIH institutes provide online 
access to lightly redacted copies of grant proposals they have 
funded.19 Examples of applications to other funders can be more 
difficult to find; however, one online resource, Open Grants,20 
maintains an open repository of proposals submit-ted to a 
variety of public and private sector organizations.

Hurdle 4: Shedding the “Bunker Mentality”
Clinician-scientists are often forced to fit their grant writ-
ing into odd pockets of time around their more rigid clin-
ical schedule. Those who have received minimal research 
mentorship may not fully appreciate the benefits of robust 
initial review by a colleague before a proposal goes to an 
anonymous review panel. Consequently, grant writing 
tends to be a solitary endeavor; this “bunker mentality” can 
deprive proposals of objective external feedback and edit-
ing. Medical writers can help investigators resist this bunker 

http://www.amwajournal.org


AMWAJournal.org     44Grantsmanship Hurdles of Early Career Clinician-Scientists and How a Medical Writer Can Help

 Finally, medical writers can play the role of document 
editor to help maximize a proposal’s clarity, completeness, 
conformity to instructions, and professionalism. This ser-
vice may range from early partnership in the conceptual 
stages to copy editing at the final stage. It is important to 
remember that many early career clinician-scientists are 
looking for more than a batch of corrections. We can create 
a true professional development experience if we partner 
with our clinician-scientist colleagues and help them think 
through the communication strategy. A 2020 post to the 
AMWA Blogs cogently described the editing technique of 
providing “informational support,”25 that is, you “focus on an 
author’s development by explaining why changes are being 
suggested and offering to answer questions about editing 
recommendations/comments.” A sense of partnership and 
a supportive tone help ensure investigators will return for 
assistance with resubmissions and future proposals.

CONCLUSION
Grant seeking is an integral part of the landscape in aca-
demic medicine. Clinician-scientists who aim to advance 
their research programs and find backing for their ideas will 
continue to need skilled grant writing assistance. Medical 
writers can add value across the full scope of documents 
needed in any given proposal. We can also help our clini-
cian-scientist colleagues see the finished product from the 
vantage point of funding organizations and peer reviewers. 
This will not only increase the likelihood of a funded pro-
posal, but also cultivate a clinician-scientist’s grantsman-
ship expertise for future applications.

Acknowledgment
I thank Heather C. McNeill, MA, ELS, and Jennifer K. 
Peterson, PhD, for their constructive reviews of the article.

Author declaration and disclosures: The author notes no  
commercial associations that may pose a conflict of interest  
in relation to this article. The author received partial salary  
support from NIH funding for the Nebraska Pediatric Clinical 
Trials Unit (UG1 OD024953). Contents of the article are solely 
the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent 
the official views of NIH.

Author contact: matthew.sandbulte@unmc.edu

References
1.  What is an academic grant writer/editor? AMWA Blogs. Published 

2022. Accessed June 16, 2022. https://blog.amwa.org/what-is-an-
academic-grant-writer-editor

2.  McKinney RE, Jr. The daunting career of the physician-
investigator. Acad Med. 2017;92(10):1368-1370.

3.  Gosain A, Chu DI, Smith JJ, Neuman HB, Goldstein AM, 
Zuckerbraun BS. Climbing the grants ladder: funding 
opportunities for surgeons. Surgery. 2021;170(3):707-712.

4.  Bensken WP, Nath A, Heiss JD, Khan OI. Future directions of 
training physician-scientists: reimagining and remeasuring the 
workforce. Acad Med. 2019;94(5):659-663.

5.  Mistry MS, Williams AE. Read one, write one, get funded: two 
junior pediatric hospitalists delve into clinical research and grant 
writing. Hosp Pediatr. 2021;11(1):e6-e8.

6.  Hall AK, Mills SL, Lund PK. Clinician-investigator training and 
the need to pilot new approaches to recruiting and retaining this 
workforce. Acad Med. 2017;92(10):1382-1389.

7.  Simpson RL, Cornfield DN, Burris JE. Novel prescriptions from 
medical schools for physician-scientist training and engagement 
in the twenty-first century. Acad Med. 2021;96(4):512-515.

8.  Santen RJ, Barrett EJ, Siragy HM, Farhi LS, Fishbein L, Carey RM. 
The jewel in the crown: specific aims section of investigator-
initiated grant proposals. J Endocr Soc. 2017;1(9):1194-1202.

9.  Sauer RM, Gabbi C. Grantsmanship: What? Who? How? Eur J 
Intern Med. 2018;57:22-24.

10. Monte AA, Libby AM. Introduction to the specific aims page of a 
grant proposal. Acad Emerg Med. 2018;25(9):1042-1047.

11. Gabbi C, Sauer RM. Grantsmanship writing tips: background, 
hypothesis and aims. Eur J Intern Med. 2019;61:25-28.

12. Sauer RM, Gabbi C. Grantsmanship writing tips: significance, 
innovation and impact. Eur J Intern Med. Jul 2019;65:26-28.

13. Gabbi C, Sauer RM. Grantsmanship writing tips: the experimental 
design. Eur J Intern Med. 2019;64:21-23.

14. Goldstein AM, Balaji S, Ghaferi AA, et al. An algorithmic approach 
to an impactful specific aims page. Surgery. 2021;169(4):816-820.

15. Guyer RA, Schwarze ML, Gosain A, Maggard-Gibbons M, Keswani 
SG, Goldstein AM. Top ten strategies to enhance grant-writing 
success. Surgery. 2021;170(6):1727-1731.

16. Ingraham A, Emamaullee J, Johnston F, Fahrenholtz M, Goldstein 
AM, Keswani SG. A practical guide to writing a competitive K 
award application. Surgery. 2021;170(5):1411-1417.

17. RNA Editing. Grant checklist example. AMWA. Published 2019. 
Accessed June 16, 2022. https://www.amwa.org/page/Resource_
Library_List#Grants

18. SciENcv: science experts network curriculum vitae. National 
Library of Medicine's National Center for Biotechnology 
Information. Accessed June 22, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/sciencv/

19. Samples: applications, attachments, and other documents. 
National Institutes of Health. Updated June 14, 2022. Accessed 
June 22, 2022. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-
application-guide/resources/sample-applications.htm

20. White E. Open Grants: about. OGrants. Accessed June 11, 2022. 
https://www.ogrants.org/about.html

21. Robertson JD, Russell SW, Morrison DC. How to find the 
appropriate program and grant mechanism for your idea. In: 
Robertson JD, Russell SW, Morrison DC. The Grant Application 
Writer's Workbook - National Institutes of Health version. Grant 
Central; 2019.

22. Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). National 
Institutes of Health. Accessed September 7, 2022. https://report.
nih.gov/

23. Huang X, Dovat S, Mailman RB, Thiboutot DM, Berini D, Parent 
LJ. Building a system to engage and sustain research careers for 
physicians. Acad Med. 2021;96(4):490-494.

24. Thomas HS, Brodsky MB, Ewen JB, et al. Internal grant review 
to increase grant funding for junior investigators. Ann Neurol. 
2017;82(4):497-502.

25. Bailey MB, Benson K, Weber-Main, AM. Applying writing tutors’ 
communication techniques as a medical editor. AMWA Blog. 
Published September 21, 2020. Accessed June 16, 2022. https://
blog.amwa.org/applying-writing-tutors-communication-
techniques-as-a-medical-editor

http://www.amwajournal.org
https://blog.amwa.org/what-is-an-academic-grant-writer-editor
https://blog.amwa.org/what-is-an-academic-grant-writer-editor
https://www.amwa.org/page/Resource_Library_List#Grants
https://www.amwa.org/page/Resource_Library_List#Grants
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sciencv/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sciencv/
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/resources/sample-applications.htm
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/resources/sample-applications.htm
https://www.ogrants.org/about.html
https://report.nih.gov/
https://report.nih.gov/
https://blog.amwa.org/applying-writing-tutors-communication-techniques-as-a-medical-editor
https://blog.amwa.org/applying-writing-tutors-communication-techniques-as-a-medical-editor
https://blog.amwa.org/applying-writing-tutors-communication-techniques-as-a-medical-editor



