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 Your primary objective is to review the science and not the scientist(s)scientific merit of the proposal.
• 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, and there is help/documentation for further processing.
  • responsible use of data and timely publications are valid issues, which should be addressed in successful proposals (see Proposer Guidelines in Anonymous Reviews).
• Chairs need to be vigilant, ; redirect or cut-off discussion when discussion moves to PI or team. Perhaps need separate guidelines on how to redirect the discussionMove the discussion back to the scientific merit of the proposal.
• 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 Panels should provide some feedback to proposers if they've not anonymized themselves sufficiently.

...