...

STScI places a high value on the equity and integrity of the proposal review process. 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 of 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. Such a process may also level the playing field between new and established researchers.

Are truly anonymous submissions even possible?

...

It is not correct to consider the move to a double-anonymous process an experiment. It is one in a progression of changes that have been enacted over the years in to improve the equity and integrity of the proposal review process. We continuously evaluate the review process, with attention to fairness and balance over several factors, some of which are programmatic (e.g., are there more disproportionately more extragalactic programs than galactic?), and others demographic. We then make changes accordingly to address these issues.

...

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 Description of the Observations section, in addition to the scientific justificationScientific Justification. We encourage proposers to take extra care to sufficiently justify the technical requirements of the program in the Description of the Observations, such that the review panels can appropriately judge them. 

...

The job of the reviewers is to evaluate the scientific merit of the proposals, and issue a recommendation to the director Director on whether or not the proposed program is a worthwhile use of our most finite resource: observing time on HST. The funding of accepted proposals will remain, as it has always been, a separate part of the process, completely independent of the review panels and the TAC. Budget proposals will be reviewed by the Financial Review Committee, and will not be anonymous.

...

Panelists will flag proposals that contain identifying information as non-compliant for review by staff in the Science Mission Office (SMO). Non-compliance may affect the outcome of the proposal. Proposals may be downgraded or rejected. 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 Director has made the selections.

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

...