A reviewer is not someone who hates you, or who's looking forward to having the power to “trash” your article, grant, whatever (in fact, the author is blinded many times). The reviewer is someone who will not receive any money for a week worth reviewing in her spare time. Therefore, facilitate her work: if she does not understand what you're saying, or if you let out important information, you cannot judge that she turned your manuscript/grant down.
Of note, each reviewer has a set of values and, although luck has its importance in the peer review process, it does not have as much. What will the reviewer look at? 1. Adjustment to the call/journal, whether the study has the right scope, science, researchers and budget; in this heading, the PI is a key element in the evaluation; 2. Relevance and pertinence of the research question, whether it can be identified or, on the contrary, the study is not focused, and whether it is a feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant question and well formulated; in fact a good study justification can mean to get the grant or not; 3. Internal coherence of the proposal, checking whether all parts of the method are aligned (Objectives- study subjects- design-variables-analysis); 4. Quality tips, like pilot studies, standardisation/training session, etc. 5. In some grants, the reviewer will have to check the execution capacity of the team; and 6. Whether the budget is justified. Finally, the abstract is KEY. It should have the same sections as the protocol, focus on primary objective, and be coherent.
Disclosure of Interest None declared