Short Answer
The technical section of a TUBITAK ARDEB application must answer the reviewer's four core questions: can the research question be answered with the proposed method, is the sample size (power analysis) justified, are sources of bias brought under control, and is there a KVKK-compliant data management plan (DMP). If any one of these four areas is missing, a poor evaluation is unavoidable.
The study design must be selected with a concrete rationale (e.g., an RCT is ethically inappropriate, so a propensity score matched retrospective cohort is chosen). In the power analysis section, the software (G*Power, PASS), the alpha/beta values, the expected effect size plus its literature basis, and the loss-to-follow-up rate must all be clearly stated. The data analysis plan must be detailed test by test for the primary and secondary outcomes, and the DMP must make concrete the data storage, access, anonymization, and KVKK rationale. The biostatistics line item in the budget must match the technical section in hours and scope. Serteser Danismanlik provides support with a research infrastructure that prepares 10 to 15 page technical feasibility reports for TUBITAK ARDEB and TEYDEB applications, conducts data requirements and feasibility analyses for startup founders and research teams, manages PROSPERO-registered systematic reviews (Hip OA CRD420261324092, Knee OA CRD420261298163), and has produced a publication in an international peer-reviewed journal.
In TUBITAK ARDEB applications, the most frequently rejected section is the research method. You may have a strong clinical background and an original research question, but if the technical section remains weak, the review committee will not carry the project forward.
What Does the Reviewer Look At?
ARDEB reviewers try to answer four core questions in the technical section:
-
Is it possible to answer the question with the proposed method?
-
Is the sample size justified?
-
Are sources of bias identified and brought under control?
-
Have data security and KVKK compliance been considered?
If the answer to any one of these four questions is missing, a poor evaluation is unavoidable.
Study Design Section
Justify your design choice. "We will conduct a retrospective cohort study" is not enough; why this design?
Example of a strong rationale:
"Because a prospective randomized design is ethically inappropriate and there is sufficient data in the existing patient archive, a matched retrospective cohort design has been selected. Possible confounding factors will be controlled through propensity score matching."
Power Analysis; Mandatory
In ARDEB forms, the sample size calculation is requested as a separate field. Leaving it blank or saying "based on clinical experience" becomes grounds for rejection.
The following information must be clearly stated:
- What is the primary outcome?
- What is the expected effect size? (Based on which literature?)
- Alpha and beta values (usually 0.05 and 0.20)
- Calculation tool (G*Power, PASS, etc.)
- Rate added for loss to follow-up (10 to 20 percent)
Example: "In the power analysis performed using G*Power 3.1 software, with α=0.05 and power=0.80, for an expected effect size of d=0.5, 64 patients per group were calculated to be required. Taking a 15 percent loss-to-follow-up rate into account, the inclusion of 74 patients per group is planned."
Data Analysis Plan
For all outcomes, which statistical tests will be performed must be specified in advance.
The primary outcome and secondary outcomes must be defined separately. For each outcome:
- Data type (continuous, categorical, survival)
- Test to be used
- Subgroup analyses, if planned
"A p < 0.05 will be accepted for statistical significance"; this alone is not enough.
Data Management Plan
For ARDEB 1001 projects, a data management plan (DMP) is now becoming mandatory. The following must be explained:
- Where will the data be stored? (Institutional server, encrypted external disk)
- Who has access authorization?
- How will anonymization be performed?
- What is the rationale for processing personal data under KVKK?
- What will happen to the data at the end of the project?
Budget and Technical Alignment
There must be a budget line item for every method in the technical section. Justify the "biostatistics consultancy" budget line in the technical section: who will do it, how many hours, which analysis.
The reviewer looks at the budget and reads the technical section; any mismatch is immediately noticed.
Request a free consultation for the technical section of your TUBITAK application.
Where Do People Get Stuck Most in This Analysis?
- You wrote the power analysis section, but the reviewer rejected it saying "the effect size is not justified."
- The data management plan has become mandatory, but you do not know how to prepare a KVKK-compliant DMP.
- You cannot justify the "biostatistics consultancy" line item in the budget within the technical section.
Related Posts
Do you need technical support for your TUBITAK application?
The scope and fee differ for each study; we clarify them in a free preliminary consultation and provide a written quote. This includes a 10 to 15 page feasibility report, data requirements, and risk analysis.