Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:03:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <350779022.1288.1711638195147@ploutercf.stsci.edu> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_1287_1291608021.1711638195143" ------=_Part_1287_1291608021.1711638195143 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Based on the available literature, feedback from the community, = and the discussions of the Working Group, it is our recommendation that the= Institute move toward a dual-anonymous proposal process beginning with Cyc= le 26 HST in late 2018. We understand that a fully anonymous process requir= es active participation from community, and that there is notable apprehens= ion as to what the effect of anonymizing will do to the scientific producti= vity of the observatory. We therefore recommend a phased approach, in which= most of review is done anonymously with a sensibility check done at the ve= ry end of the review.
Report of the Working= Group on Anonymous Proposal Reviews.pdf
Presentation to the Space Telescope Users Committee (WGAPR_STUC_= 180420.key)
We're working on a plan for implementing anonymous proposal reviews begi= nning with the Cycle 26 HST TAC process. This includes,
The document with our charge, Working Group on An= onymous Proposing final.pdf
The working group has completed draft=
s on guidelines for proposers, guidelines for TAC reviewers, and an FAQ.
Chair: Lou Strolger (STScI)
Members: Peter Garnavich (Notre Dame), Stefanie Johnson (Leeds Business = School, U. Colorado, Boulder), Mercedes Lopez- Morales (CfA, STUC), Andrea = Prestwich (CfA), Christina Richey (JPL), Paule Sonnentrucker (STScI), Micha= el Strauss (Princeton), and Brian Williams (STScI)
Ex-officio: Tom Brown, Neill Reid (STScI)
The following presentations were given to the WGAPR:
The HST =
Peer Review Information site has detailed info=
rmation from the Science Policies Group on HST peer review, including some =
history on the evaluation of the review, more specific guidelines to reviewers, presen=
tations provided at orientation on the observatory status and science activ=
ities, lists of previous panelists and chairs, and the proposal processing procedures=
.
The STScI Chief Librarian, Jenny Nova= cescu, has complied a few articles on dual-anonymous peer reviews that have= been useful in our discussions. See the document Anonymous-Double Blind Review A= nnotated Bibliography.docx, but before diving into these articles, a place to start might be this article in Science Magazine.