...

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.

...

What will happen to proposals that are not sufficiently anonymized?

in the long-term? in the interim?Panelists will flag proposals that contain identifying information for review by staff in the Science Mission Office (SMO). For the initial cycle, this will not result in a disqualification of the proposal, but only a warning. However, in future cycles, we will be more strict about requiring anonymity, and 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.

How do we deal with continuing programs?

demonstrating the knowledge of what's been done, discuss work in progress by the community or by reference. Justify the science each time they propose.

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

STScI has plagiarism software that monitors all submissions. Suspicious cases will be flagged and reviewed by SMO staff, and plagiarized proposals may be disqualified. However, a similarity of ideas and proposals that can compete for the best use of HST to test these ideas is crucial to the scientific process.

Where can I find the guidelines?

...