Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


We're working on a plan for implementing anonymous proposal reviews beginning with the Cycle 26 HST TAC process. This includes,

  • a plan for proposal reviewsreview and possible revision of the proposal process, from phase I submissions to TAC selection.
  • instructions to proposers on how to write anonymous proposals
  • instructions to the TAC , panels , and chairs on how to review anonymous proposals
  • information to for the community on the issues with single-blinded singly anonymous peer reviews, and the solutions double-blinded duel anonymous reviews should address.

The document with our charge, Working Group on Anonymous Proposing v1.pdf


Statistics final.pdf


Chair: Lou Strolger (STScI)

Members: Peter Garnavich (Notre Dame), Stefanie Johnson (Leeds Business School, U. Colorado, Boulder), Mercedes Lopez- Morales (CfA, STUC), Andrea Prestwich (CfA), Christina Richey (JPL), Paule Sonnentrucker (STScI), Michael Strauss (Princeton), and Brian Williams (STScI)

Ex-officio: Tom Brown, Neill Reid (STScI)


The following presentations were given to the WGAPR:

  • On the statistics on HST proposal success rates, 



The Current HST Proposal Process


The HST Call formally describes the proposal process and review policies each cycle. In particular, Chapter 6.1 covers how the reviews are done, and Chapter 6.2 discusses the selection criteria which we expect panel reviewers and the TAC to evaluate on. The HST Peer Review Information site has much more detailed information from the Science Policies Group Site has much more technical information on the HST peer review, including more detailed some history on the evaluation of the review, more specific guidelines to reviewers, presentations provided at orientation on the observatory status and science activities, lists of previous panelists and chairs, and the proposal processing procedures

Articles on


Duel Anonymous Reviews

The STScI Chief Librarian, Jenny Novacescu, has complied a few articles on double-blind peer reviews that should be useful in our discussions. They are available on on Box (, and include crib notes by the Librarian on each article in the document Anonymous-Double Blind Review Annotated Bibliography [.docx.]Before diving into these articles, a place to start might be this article in Science Magazine. A question I had in reading this is if we had an optional anonymous submission option, as a compromise, would anyone use it? Jenny has thankfully provided some crib notes on each of the articles in the document Anonymous-Double Blind Review Annotated Bibliography [.docx.].