The paper is a gap analysis - that is, a discussion of the most pressing gaps in our knowledge of the field. It's broken down into several different sub-fields, and each section includes the following:
- A brief literature review that describes our current understanding of the subject
- A list of gaps in that understanding
- Obstacles to filling the gaps (e.g. limitations to existing technologies, lack of funding etc.)
- How filling in the gaps will benefit researchers and patients
On a related topic, the Medical Writing, Editing and Grantsmanship blog has a great post on how not to get your grant funded. There are some great tips on there, to which I would add the following:
- Use different formatting and alternative spellings throughout. Your reviewers will be impressed with your lack of attention to detail and will realise that you're probably as sloppy with your data as you are with your grant applications.
If you need anything else to read, there's a scary fish and a dodgy analogy on my Nature Network blog. (Yes, I got into a disagreement with a Nature editor last week. Really smart move for an aspiring freelance science writer, eh? All is well now though. And I've got the 4th most active blog and 3rd most commented-on post this week! Woo hoo!)
Have a good weekend!