You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 5 Next »

First stab


Why are you moving to double-blinded reviews?

As with other similar reviews, our goal is to give each reviewer an unbiased look at each proposals. Several studies have shown that a reviewer's attitude toward a proposal may be affected, even unconsciously, by the identity of the author (more ...)


Are truly anonymous submissions even possible?

Even in our relatively small community, it's less likely that one would correctly guess the authorship of a proposal than one might believe.

How difficult will the changes be on proposers?


How do the reviewers assess the proposers' responsible use of the telescope, or likelihood of scientific return?


How do the reviewers assess the proposers' responsible use of funds that are allocated with each science program?


What will the implementation process be?


What will happen to proposals that are not sufficiently anonymized?

in the long-term? in the interim?

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.




  • No labels