...

STScI places a high value on the equity and integrity of the proposal review process. As with similar reviews, the 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 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 on our reviews suggest a double-anonymous process would resolve this inequity, and may balance out other areas of potential bias including affiliation and country of origin.

...

The double anonymous proposal review process will require some changes in the way proposers write their proposals. We have written some Proposer Guidelines 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.

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

As with all prior HST reviews, the panelists and the Telescope Allocation Committee (TAC) must use their expert judgement to determine whether each proposal would result in the proper use of the telescope and a scientific return on the project. Each proposal will still have a technical justification section, in addition to the scientific justification. We encourage proposers to take extra care to sufficiently justify the technical requirements of the program, such that the review panels can appropriately judge them. 

How can we be sure that accepted HST proposals are actually feasible if the TAC can't assess the team's past experience?

It is STScI's responsibility to ensure that the community has equal access to HST, regardless of past experience. All accepted HST proposals are assigned a Program Coordinator (PC) who works with the PI and team to finalize the Phase II submission. The PCs are highly experienced and will flag particularly challenging proposals for further technical review. In addition, all proposals with PIs who are new to HST are assigned a Contact Scientist (CS) from the appropriate Instrument Division support team; the CS will provide both technical and scientific advice as necessary. If a program proves to be infeasible, it will not be executed.

...

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

...