Can anyone offer advice on how to write a research plan for an academic position (in physics) that is competent and believable without giving away the farm and all your ideas? It seems to me these two things are mutually exclusive. A committee will not be convinced without a believable plan, but it is hard to see how one can sound believable without detailing and being specific about your ideas. So what's to stop the search committee from: *snip*, "thanks for my next grant proposal." I think anyone who is in the academic physics field knows that there are more than a few physicists out there who can, will, and have done this. Obviously I don't yet have funding for my idea, or it would be a moot point. "Hmm, candidate already has grant, hired!" Note that I'm applying to undergrad-focused institutions. In today's market, I'm not even sure people without current grants in their own control are even considered. Thanks.