Versions Compared


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


  • Do not include author names or affiliations anywhere in the PDF attachment. This includes but is not limited to, page headers, footers, diagrams, figures, or watermarks. This does not include references to past work, which should be included whenever relevant (see below).
  • 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...”. 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 under HST program #XXXXX," instead write "HST program #XXXXX has observed this target in the past..."
  • 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.” 

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 one plans to resubmit a proposal from a previous cycle or other submissions

It may also take more 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, an goals in comparison to similar work.

The focus of the TAC review is to recommend the best science The proposing team's past experience is not