Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1822272370.1931.1711647616503@ploutercf.stsci.edu> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_1930_1183138626.1711647616500" ------=_Part_1930_1183138626.1711647616500 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
The HST peer review process will move to a double-anonymous review proce= ss, in which authors=E2=80=99 identities are concealed from both review pan= el members and TAC members. Provided here are guidelines to assist proposer= s in preparing their proposals, specifically their PDF Submissions, to help= conceal the identities of the proposers, and ensure a fairer proposal eval= uation process. See the Recommendations of the Working= Group on Anonymizing Proposal Reviews site for information in the work= ing group that compiled these guidelines, and the FAQ on Anonymizing Proposal Revi= ews for more general information on this change. A similar page gi= ves Reviewer Guidelines in Anonymous Reviews for the same purposes. =
The anonymous review does not mean proposals will be accepted from anony= mous sources. As with previous cycles, proposers must still enter the names= and affiliations of all investigators into the APT system. APT will not in= clude names or affiliations in the versions generated for the reviews.
While APT will largely obscure the proposing teams identities in cover m= aterials, it will not change or alter information contained in the PDF subm= ission. It is also necessary for proposers to take additional = steps to further anonymize their PDF attachment before it is uploaded to AP= T. Below are some guidelines to follow to do this:
It takes some effort by authors to anonymize their PDF submissions. As t= he guidelines show, grammar and structure are expected to be different than= in previous HST submissions. Take sufficient time to prepare the m= anuscript, especially if your plan to resubmit a proposal from a previ= ous cycle or other submissions.
Proposers should make an effort to describe the past work in the field, = and how this proposal will improve, build-upon, or complete that past work.= Many successful proposals discuss stated sample goals or statistical compl= eteness, and how this proposed work will fit in. Similarly, proposals may a= lso discuss the uniqueness of the sample, and goals in comparison to simila= r work.
As part of this change, STScI will also require proposers to complete th= e "Team Expertise and Background" section in APT. This should be a brief description of the expertise, backgroun= d, and roles of the team members as they relate to the science proposed.&nb= sp;This section should be limited in length; for most proposals, a paragrap= h or two will suffice. For proposals with a large number of Co-Investigator= s, it is not necessary to report on the qualifications of every team member, only those conducting or lea= ding major aspects of the proposed study. This does = not need to be a bio of the team members. See this Sample Document for an = example of how a Team Expertise and Background section might look.= p>