Site Contents

The HST peer review process for Cycle 26 has moved will move to a double-blind anonymous review process, in which authors’ identities are concealed from both review panel members and TAC members. Provided here are guidelines to assist proposers in preparing their proposals, specifically their PDF Submissions, to help conceal the identities of the proposers, and ensure a fairer proposal evaluation process. See the Recommendations of the Working Group on Anonymizing Proposal Reviews site for information in the FAQ section for more working group that compiled these guidelines, and the FAQ on Anonymizing Proposal Reviews for more general information on this change [include link when published]. Proposers will . A similar page gives Reviewer Guidelines in Anonymous Reviews for the same purposes.  

The anonymous review does not mean proposals will be accepted from anonymous sources. As with previous cycles, proposers must still enter the names and affiliations of all investigators into the APT system, but . APT will not include these names or affiliations in the versions generated for the reviews.

While APT will largely obscure the proposing teams identities in cover materials, it will not change or alter information contained in the PDF submission. It documents that the reviewers will see. However, it is also necessary for proposers to take additional steps to further anonymize their PDF attachment before it is uploaded to APT. Below are some guidelines to follow to do this:

• Do not include author names or affiliations anywhere in the manuscript, including the PDF attachment. This includes but is not limited to, page headers and footers., footers, diagrams, figures, or watermarks. 
• Referencing is an essential part of demonstrating knowledge of the field and progress. When citing references within the proposal, use third person neutral wording when possible. This especially applies to self-referencing. For example, replace phrases like “as we have shown in our previous work (Doe et al. 2010)” with “as Doe et al. (2010) showed...”If self-referencing is essential, cite papers published by the author as [author(s) et al. 2010] in the text. In the reference list, delete the citation, and use the placeholder [author(s) et al. 2010]. Do not refer to previous campaigns using HST or other observatories in an identifying fashion. For instance, rather than write "we observed another cluster, similar to the one we are proposing for here, in 2014 under HST program #XXXXX," instead write "our team has used HST HST program #XXXXX has observed this target in the past to observe clusters similar to the one we propose for here..."
• Do not include acknowledgements, or the source of any grant funding.
• Check that no author information is included in the metadata that is automatically created by many word processing programs. In many common programs, like Word or Acrobat Reader, this information can be displayed (and edited) in the “File” tab, under “properties.” 
Remove any identifying information that might be present in figures and tables
•  

It takes some effort by authors to anonymize their PDF submissions. As the guidelines show, grammar and structure are expected to be different than in previous HST submissions. Take sufficient time to prepare the manuscript, especially if your plan to resubmit a proposal from a previous 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 completeness, and how this proposed work will fit in. Similarly, proposals may also discuss the uniqueness of the sample, and goals in comparison to similar work.

Team Expertise and Background

As part of this change, STScI will also require proposers to complete the "Team Expertise and Background" section in APT. This should be a brief description of the expertise, background, and roles of the team members as they relate to the science proposed. This section should be limited in length; for most proposals, a paragraph or two will suffice. For proposals with a large number of Co-Investigators, it is not necessary to report on the qualifications of every team member, only those conducting or leading 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.