Page History

...

The STScI is considering options for further anonymizing the HST peer review process will move to a , including hybrid procedures that incorporate aspects of double-anonymous review process, in which where authors’ identities are concealed from both review panel members and TAC membersat least partially to reviewers. Provided here are responses to common issues (presented as a FAQ) to provide general information to the community on these changes. See the Anonymizing Proposal Reviews Working Group Home site for information on the working group that compiled these guidelines.  The Proposer Guidelines in Anonymous Reviews for help in preparing proposals, and a similar page Reviewer Guidelines in Anonymous Reviews gives general guidelines to reviewers. Please send questions and comments to hstanon@stsci.edu. 

...

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 of our reviews suggest a double-anonymous process would might help 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.

...