...

STScI is considering options for further anonymizing moving to further anonymize the HST peer review process , including hybrid procedures that incorporate aspects of double-anonymous review where and has developed a procedure in which authors’ identities are concealed at least partially to reviewers. Provided here are responses to common issues (presented as a an FAQ) to provide general information to the community on these changes. See the Anonymizing Proposal Reviews Working Group Home site for information on the working group that compiled these guidelines.  The , as well as the final report authored by the working group. See the Proposer Guidelines in Anonymous Reviews for help in preparing proposals, and ; a similar page, Reviewer Guidelines in Anonymous Reviews, gives general guidelines to reviewers. 

...

STScI places a high value on the equity and integrity of the proposal review process. The goal is to give each reviewer an unbiased look at the proposal. Several studies have shown that a reviewer's attitude toward a submission may be affected, even either consciously or unconsciously, by the identity of the lead author or principal investigator (see reference papers).  We have noted that over the last 15 cycles, HST proposals led by women have had systematically and successively lower success rates than those lead by men (Reid 2014). While the exact cause is unknown, independent studies of our reviews suggest a double-anonymous process might help resolve this inequity, and may balance out other areas of potential bias including affiliation and country of origin. Such a process may also level the playing field between new and established researchers.

...

The double anonymous proposal review process will require some changes in the way proposers write their proposals. We have written some Proposer Guidelines in Anonymous Reviews to describe these changes and aid in the proposal preparation. As one will note, the changes are mostly in the style, structure, and grammar used in describing the work done in the field, and the preparedness of the proposers to do the work. While not a lot of work, it will not be as simple as resubmitting previous versions of the same manuscript. We will also be asking each proposal team to submit a "Team Expertise and Background" document, providing a brief outline of the team members (non-anonymized) and their relevant expertise. This document will be shown to the review panels after the ranked list of proposals has been made. This document, which need be no longer than half a page, should be emailed to hubblereview@stsci.edu after the submission of a proposal (a few days after the proposal deadline is fine). More on this final stage of review can be found below.

What changes will be made to the review panel process?

For most of the review process, the panels will not know the identity of the proposers. Panels must focus on the scientific merit of the proposal and the technical justification describing the use of the telescope to address the science proposed, and make their ranked list of recommended programs. In addition to the panel chairs and the panel support staff, each panel will be assigned a "Leveler" for the duration of the review meeting. Levelers, who could be either STScI staff or external persons, will have received appropriate training, and will attend all panel discussions as observers, and are responsible for ensuring that the discussion focuses solely on the aforementioned criteria, and does not deviate into speculation of team identity or other inappropriate topics. Once the ranked list is set, the identities of the proposers will be shown to the panel, in the form of the "Team Expertise and Background" document that the proposers submitted to STScI. At this final stage, the panel may choose to flag proposals for disqualification if the reason for doing so is well-justified and agreed to by a majority of the panel members. Reasons for disqualification include, but are not limited to: significant ethical misconduct in misrepresenting the scientific expertise of the team, misleading the panel as to the availability of supporting resources, or any other attempts to deliberately and unethically subvert the process. Should the panel choose to flag a proposal, they must articulate the reasons why in an open discussion with the panelists, chair, Leveler, and other appropriate members of the Science Mission Office at STScI. This disqualification flag, which would result in a non-selection of the proposal, is only a recommendation from the panel; the final decision rests with the Director.

How do the reviewers assess the proposers' responsible use of the telescope, or likelihood of scientific return?

...

As a reviewer, how can I be sure that the proposers are being ethical when discussing their expertise and/or access to other facilities? What if we allocate time to the wrong people?

It First, it is a misconception that the review panels and the TAC allocate the time awarded for HST observations. The TAC makes recommendations to the STScI Director on which programs they feel are most worthy of observing time. The Director, as the selecting official, makes the final determination in coordination with appropriate members of STScI staff, including the Science Mission Office (SMO), HST Mission Office, ESA, and operations/scheduling staff. Proposals will be anonymous only to the review panels and the TAC, not to appropriate STScI staff or the Director, who will know the full proposal team. These recommended programs are also reviewed, with full identities exposed, during both the Phase II and Budget submissions by STScI staff and the Financial Review Committee (FRC). Any At the final stage of the panel review, when the "Team Expertise and Background" section is shown to the reviewers (with names included), any egregious ethical violations or misrepresentations can be flagged. These will be brought to the attention of the Director, as well as the host institutions of the proposal team, and, if necessary, the broader community. Any such proposals will be sanctioned and are subject to cancellation of the observationsdisqualification.

How do the reviewers assess the proposers' responsible use of funds that are allocated with each science program?

...

All proposals will be subject to this change and should be anonymized. For archival and theory proposals, the analysis plan, describing the tools and techniques that will be used to complete the proposed analysis, should remain in the PDF attachment, but should be anonymized in accordance with the proposer guidelines. The management plan, which describes the personnel responsible for the proposed study, should be removed from the proposal. The "Team Expertise and Background" section should describe the qualifications of the team members to carry out the proposed work. For accepted proposals, the management plan should be included in the budget proposal for review by the FRC.

...

When will this change be implemented?

The implementation process is still being developed, but it is likely that this will be implemented beginning in HST Cycle 26.

What will happen to proposals that are not sufficiently anonymized?

Compliance with this policy is mandatory, and proposers must follow the guidelines laid out in the Cycle 26 Call for Proposals. Flagrant violators will be subject to disqualification of their proposal before the review panel stage. Less serious violations (e.g., forgetting to change a reference from first person to third person) will be allowed to remain in contention, but will be flagged for review by SMO and the Director for a final decision. Feedback will be provided to the proposers regarding any violations.

I've followed the guidelines, but my work is so niche (or my analysis methods so unique) that I fear panelists may be able to determine my identity. Will I be flagged as non-compliant?

Panelists will flag proposals that contain identifying information as non-compliant for review by staff in SMO. Non-compliance may affect the outcome of the proposal. Proposals may be downgraded or rejected. STScI reserves the right to disqualify any offending proposals. Feedback will be provided to the authors of the proposal when the reviewers comments are returned after the TAC has concluded and the Director has made the selections.So long as the guidelines for proposers are followed, the answer is NO, such a proposal will not be considered to be in violation. It is not necessary to "water down" or obscure your science, your methods, or your tools, it is simply your responsibility to write about them in the third-person, in a way that does not intentionally identify yourself. 

How can I be sure that someone won't plagiarize my proposal from a previous cycle?

...