Why are you moving to double-anonymous reviews?
STScI places a high value on the equity and integrity of the proposal review process. As with other similar reviews, the goal is to give each reviewer an unbiased look at each proposals. 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. While the exact cause is unknown, there have been studies on our reviews which suggest a double anonymous process may help to resolve the inequity.
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 will you know if the experiment was successful or not?
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.
