Preparing Your CNRS Research Synthesis

December 16, 2025 12 minute read

In this post, we first walk you through a brief reminder of the required documents for a CNRS application and then spend the rest of the article on one of the components that takes the longest to get right: the research synthesis. It’s the base of your application, it’s only four pages long, and it’s one of the two documents where you really need to show who you are as a researcher.

Before we dive in: all application documents can be written in English or French. Section 19 genuinely doesn’t care which language you choose, as long as you follow their document instructions and submit something that clearly and confidently showcases your research profile. Choose the language that lets you express yourself the best.

1. The Required Documents (and What the Committee Actually Imposes)

Let’s start with the basics. The CNRS as a whole does not actually prescribe an application format. All constraints come from the section, and Section 19 (Astronomy and Astrophysics) is very clear about one thing, you need:

A research synthesis
A research project
A CV
A highlighted list of publications

That’s it. Four documents.

Now, here’s where the nuance begins: Apart from needing to score high on the evaluation criteria that the committee uses and that are listed on their website, there are almost no official guidelines except for:

❗ The research synthesis + the project together may not exceed 8 pages.

There is no page count specified for each individually, they only enforce the total. The “classic” split is:

4 pages research synthesis
4 pages project

but you’re allowed to do 3+5 or 5+3 if needed. In practice, nearly everyone sticks to 4+4, and the committee strongly expects that format. It is really important not to exceed the eight pages total, with a minimum font size of 11 pt to keep things readable.

While the page limit is the only formal rule, there is a second reality you need to accept:

❗ There is an unwritten, unofficial document structure that competitive candidates follow.

You won’t find it on the website. You won’t find it in any official documentation. But if you talk to anyone who has sat on the committee or anyone who got invited for auditions in the last decade (and even longer), you’ll hear the same message:

“If you want to be competitive, you follow the template.”

This is why we recommend reading as many past successful applications as possible. Both a strong synthesis and project almost always use the same underlying architecture and the same general rhythm. Of course there is always a modulation of the detailed expectations and evaluations depending on any given committee, which works on a 5-year appointment. This means that there is of course no perfect recipe that will for sure lead to an audition, however, the untold base structure is always the same.

Today’s post is about exactly that architecture for the research synthesis. In a future post, we hope to provide a similar rundown for the projet.

💡 Note: The structure overview given here is slightly less strong for the CNAP research synthesis as they provide an actual template that you have to follow (which will be published on the Concours webpage of the CNAP website once their concours will be opened). The general writing advice given here will be applicable to both CNRS and CNAP applications, and the structure of the CNAP template ressembles the one wanted for CNRS. However, the CNRS one has a lot more implicit expectations, which is why we hope to cover the CNAP research synthesis in a separate blog article.

2. What the Research Synthesis Really Is (and What It Isn’t)

Think of the research synthesis as the story of your research identity: what you have done, what themes connect your work, the skills you learned along the way, what you uniquely bring to French research, and why your trajectory makes sense.

It is not a chronological list of contracts:

“I did a PhD on X, then a postdoc on Y, then another postdoc on Z…”

This is the most common early-career mistake, and it really weakens an application. The committee doesn’t want a timeline. They want a thematic arc.

You should use the research synthesis to show that your work fits together intellectually, even if your CV looks like a patchwork of projects (which it does for everyone). A good synthesis makes the reader think:

“This person has a coherent identity and a clear scientific direction.”

Let’s break down the structure you should aim for.

3. The Recommended Structure of a Strong Research Synthesis

This structure appears over and over again in successful applications. While each candidate personalizes it, the underlying skeleton is remarkably consistent.

3.1 Introduction/Context (~½ page)

This is one of the hardest parts to write, because half a page is… tiny. But it’s also the first impression you give the committee, and it’s where you show you understand the bigger picture of your field.

You need to:

set the scientific context clearly enough for any astronomer
identify the broad open questions
position your work within that landscape
state the global direction of your research identity

Important:

Do NOT let this section expand into a full page. If it grows beyond ~⅔ of a page, you need to trim it. If it fills the entire first page, the committee will expect sharper editing.

💡 Pro tip: you can lean on the general thematic introduction you write here when writing your project later, so having a clear and solid introduction to your field here is important.

3.2 Thematic Sections on Past & Current Research (~3 pages)

This is the core of your synthesis and the part that the committee evaluates most closely.

Here’s what competitive candidates do:

They structure their work into one, two, or three major themes (rarely more).
Each theme has subsections (1–3 each) describing key results, methods, or developments.
Each subsection opens with a mini executive summary - one or two lines in bold where you highlight what is important and why it shows your strength.

The key is to build a narrative around your contributions.

You are not listing tasks.

You are showing scientific leadership, technical skill, and coherence.

❗ Straight chronological storytelling rarely works. If you see yourself drifting toward “first I did this… then I did that…”, step back and reorganize by theme.

3.3 Highlighted Skills & Expertise (~⅓ page)

Many candidates dedicate the last third page to a section focusing solely on skills the want to put forward.

This is where you explicitly state:

the expertise you bring
the techniques you master
what sets you apart

Statements like:

“I am one of the few researchers able to…”
“I have developed a unique expertise in…”
“I lead efforts on…”

are perfectly acceptable. You’re not bragging, you’re helping the committee understand your value.

❗ Successful applicants make their strengths explicit, not implicit.

It’s a common mistake to expect the reviewers to understand the impact of X or Y. It is super important to be super explicit in everything you write. Help them understand why the thing you did is such a big deal!

3.4 Bibliography (counts toward the 4 pages!)

Your references must fit within the four pages. Keep them concise. They should appear at the end of the document and should be consistent with the in-text citations you use throughout the synthesis.

Keep in mind that you are writing a job application, not a publication, which means:

❗ References are not just for backing up claims, they are one of your most important self-promotion tools.

You obviously need to cite other people’s work when you make technical or scientific claims. But the research synthesis is your place to highlight your contributions, so self-citations are not optional. They are expected.

If you have:

first-author papers
high-impact results, which could be papers where you are not first author but you made a major contribution
major technical contributions
a method, model, or code that people actually use

then it must appear both:

in the text, where you describe the work, and
in the bibliography, a short list at the end of your doc of all your in-text citations.

This is how the committee understands your impact. They will not look up your work themselves, you need to place it in front of them, clearly and confidently.

Obviously the separate document containing a commented selection of publications also underlines all of this, but including your publications in the text of your application documents is a must to immediately convey the impact of your work as the reviewers are reading it.

Also, do not list your h-index, the committee won’t care. We thankfully seem to have reached a point where (most) quantitative publication metrics are recognized to be skewed, so they will not be a factor in your application. Careful, you still want a strong publication record! In particular first-author papers show your scientific productivity and impact within your field, and co-authored papers display your capability to collaborate. However, the committee(s) seem(s) to have learned to make a much more in-depth evaluation of one’s past work and future potential, and they are able to de-bias the pure number of one’s publications by your concrete subfield, point in your career, and your overall skills and profile.

3.5 A warning about work “in preparation”

Do not list anything that is “in preparation” in your application. The committee will ignore it. Not skim past it, they will truly ignore it. It has no weight.

If you have submitted something to a peer-reviewed journal, you can list it, but:

clearly label it as submitted, and
upload it to arXiv / astro-ph so the committee can verify that the work exists.

Is it slightly awkward to upload something to arXiv before acceptance? Yes, a bit. But as long as you explicitly state that the work is submitted but not yet accepted, you’re fine, and you are providing concrete proof to your claims about the work you have done.

💡 Pro tip: If you have something labelled as “submitted” for your written application, do everything you can to have it accepted by the time you might be doing your audition. It won’t change the world, but it does show continuity, consequence and weight in your work.

4. Using Figures: Yes, But Carefully

The committee reads dozens of syntheses. A well-chosen figure always helps.

The important thing is that figures should highlight a key result or method, not act as decorative filler. And as always, general figure rules apply:

Keep the figure count to a minimum, 1-3 figures seem to be ok (this is not actually a hard rule) but make sure that each figure you add has a relevant and strong message.
They must be readable (fonts sizes!)
Captions must be short and clear
Refer to figures in the text to help the reviewer place them into your story.

5. The Most Important Writing Guidelines

Let us close with the points that really make or break a research synthesis.

Use the first person everywhere.

Write:

“I developed…”
“I demonstrated…”
“I analyzed…”

The committee wants to know what you did, not what “was done”. Make sure to zoom in on your concrete contribution.

Be quantitative.

Use numbers. Use performance metrics. Use concrete values for improvements, gains, parameters. This makes your contributions real and credible.

Be explicit about your expertise and impact.

Don’t rely on the committee to infer it. Spell it out.

Make your structure visually clear.

Use boldface for key messages, subsections, and summary lines. A good synthesis is easy to skim.

Write for astronomers outside your subfield.

Your reader may be a cosmologist, a galactic archaeologist, or a planetary physicist. They will not know your jargon. If in doubt, simplify.

Remember that this is a job application, not a paper.

You cite your work, yes. But you don’t cite like a journal article. You cite to show traceability, impact and contribution clarity, not to show exhaustive completeness.

Check off the section’s evaluation criteria.

Section 19 has a list of evaluation criteria on their website. They divide them into general criteria for high-quality research, and recruitment criteria for a chargé/e de recherche (and directeur de recherche). It is of utmost importance to check off all three of the listed criteria, and do so in a convincing manner.

As the section says themselves: “The assessment of these criteria is open, non-exclusive, non-hierarchical and not strictly cumulative; the criteria are adjusted according to career stage.” Which reinforces one of our earlier points about there not being a perfect recipe to follow, but the section is telling you pretty clearly what they are looking for, so make sure to tell them how you fit into the profile they want!

Have it reviewed, reviewed, reviewed…

We have stated this in numerous posts before, but this is a really important point:

💡 Have your documents reviewed by previous laureates and previous committee members, at all stages of writing.

We cannot stress enough how much applicants need an insider’s eye to get things right. Also make sure to ask for reviews several times, not just before you submit. It is these iterations with you personal “application team” that will make your application documents competitive. They will help you in putting critical information forward, keeping things concise and making sure you write things so that they are well prepared for the reviewers.

6. Final Thoughts

Writing the research synthesis is hard. It’s a strange document: part review article, part narrative, part personal statement, part technical summary. But once you understand the structure that the community has converged on, it becomes much easier to navigate.

Your goal is simple:

Show who you are as a researcher, what you uniquely contributed to your field, the impact you had in your career until now, and how your work fits into the future of astronomy in France.

In a future post, we’ll break down the project document: how to structure it, how it connects to the synthesis, and how to keep it within its four-page limit while still presenting a compelling short-, mid- and long-term vision.

Good luck with your writing, and courage for the concours season - you’re not doing this alone.

Share on

X Facebook LinkedIn Bluesky