Reviewers need a calibrated assessment of the candidate, not a long description of the laboratory. Keep the project context brief and devote the letter to the applicant’s decisions, habits, growth, and potential.
Define the supervision context
State when and where you worked together, your role, the project, the candidate’s career stage, and the amount of independence expected. This prevents a routine task from being misread as an independent contribution.
Make rigor and independence visible
Describe how the applicant planned, documented, interpreted, questioned, revised, or communicated research. A failed experiment or challenged assumption can be more revealing than a clean result.
- Recognized a limitation
- Changed a method for a reason
- Protected data quality
- Integrated feedback
- Communicated uncertainty
- Helped collaborators work more effectively
Assess potential and growth honestly
Discuss the candidate’s readiness for the next stage, opportunities for development, and the evidence behind your forecast. Current NIH guidance explicitly seeks information that helps reviewers understand strengths, growth opportunities, and potential for a productive research career.
Submit the right kind of letter
Confirm whether the destination asks for a confidential reference, letter of support, institutional commitment, or standardized form. Use the official instructions and submit through the required channel by the deadline.
Focus the letter on observable research behavior, independent contribution, growth, and a calibrated forecast of future potential.
Keep the research positions requirements in view.
For NIH programs, a reference letter evaluates the candidate and is submitted directly by an eligible referee; a letter of support documents institutional or collaborator commitment and follows a different process. Funding opportunities can specify exact numbers, eligibility, identifiers, deadlines, and submission routes.
Return to the Research positions cluster →