We're working on a plan for implementing anonymous proposal reviews beginning with the Cycle 26 HST TAC process. This includes,
The document with our charge, Working Group on Anonymous Proposing final.pdf
The working group as completed drafts on guidelines for proposers, guidelines for TAC reviewers, and an FAQ. At this juncture we are soliciting input from the community. Please send questions and comments to email@example.com.
Chair: Lou Strolger (STScI)
Members: Peter Garnavich (Notre Dame), Stefanie Johnson (Leeds Business School, U. Colorado, Boulder), Mercedes Lopez- Morales (CfA, STUC), Andrea Prestwich (CfA), Christina Richey (JPL), Paule Sonnentrucker (STScI), Michael Strauss (Princeton), and Brian Williams (STScI)
Ex-officio: Tom Brown, Neill Reid (STScI)
The following presentations were given to the WGAPR:
The HST Call formally describes the proposal process and review policies each cycle. In particular, Chapter 6.1 covers how the reviews are done, and Chapter 6.2 discusses the selection criteria which we expect panel reviewers and the TAC to evaluate on. The HST Peer Review Information site has much more detailed information from the Science Policies Group on HST peer review, including some history on the evaluation of the review, more specific guidelines to reviewers, presentations provided at orientation on the observatory status and science activities, lists of previous panelists and chairs, and the proposal processing procedures.
The STScI Chief Librarian, Jenny Novacescu, has complied a few articles on double-blind peer reviews that should be useful in our discussions. They are available on Box (http://bit.ly/2ENhoV4), and include crib notes by the Librarian on each article in the document Anonymous-Double Blind Review Annotated Bibliography [.docx.]. Before diving into these articles, a place to start might be this article in Science Magazine.