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

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 5 Next »

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.

  • Your primary objective is to review the 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, 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. Move 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.
  • Panels should provide feedback to proposers if they've not anonymized themselves sufficiently.

  • No labels