Page History
A first stab at issues reviewers should be aware of. We will recommend these guidelines be added to the orientation material and sent out prior to the triage review. We may ask for a streamlining of orientation material, and a checklist, so this doesn't get lost in the flood of documentation.
- Primary objective is to review the science and not the scientist(s).
- Do not spend time attempting to identify the team or the principle investigator.
- Past usage of HST is no longer a consideration
- MAST provides "science ready" data for most uses.
- availably of help
- need to trim orientation material – note.
- note- have smo review the checklist-- need more specifics
- specific directions to the Chairs to cutoff/redirect discussion when goes astray...
- don't spend time trying to figure out who's doing this
- flag non-compliant proposals: The director will decide what to do,
- /documentation for further processing.
- responsible use of data and timely publications are valid issues, which should be addressed in successful proposals (see Proposer Guidelines).
- Chairs need to be vigilant, redirect or cut discussion when discussion moves to PI or team. Perhaps need separate guidelines on how to redirect the discussion.
- Proposals that are not compliant with the anonymizing guidelines should be flagged as non-compliant, much in the same way proposals that exceed the page limits are flagged. Non-compliance will affect the outcome of the proposal. Proposals may be downgraded or rejected.
- Expect panels to provide some feedback expect more comments to proposers if they've not anonymized themselves sufficiently.
