Cycle%207%20Peer%20Review:%2021-23%20June%202005

1
Cycle 7 Peer Review 21-23 June 2005

• 747 proposals, 12 panels, 101 reviewers
• Hilton, Logan Airport

2
Submitted Proposals

• New in Cycle 7
• Decrease in allowance for constrained
  observations 15, plus accurate accounting of
  obsvns.
• Database-based panel GUI software faster and
  more accurate access to proposal information
• PDF files only
• Electronic proposal distribution, hardcopies on
  request (20 requested hardcopy)
• Spitzer joint time program
• Fully-web-based peer-review reports
• War Room at deadline time!

3
Aggressive Advertising of New Constraint Policy

• CfP Erratum describing new Constraint Policy
• Electronic Bulletin including the same notice
• Pitch Angle Restrictions web page updated
• FAQs on Constrained Observations web page posted
• Helpdesk available as always to answer detailed
  questions

4
Receipt Curve
Cycle 7
Cycle 6
5
Proposals accepted per Type vs Cycle
6
Proposals Approved by Science Area
7
Requested Time Approved by Science Area
8
Time Allocated per Instrument
9
Grant Award Periods

• Award Periods
• Grants may be requested for 1 or 2 years
• One-year no-cost extension to allow completion of
  science project is available on request with a
  brief justification
• Second one-year no-cost extension is also
  available if justified
• Documentation
• CfP Section 8.6, updated to clarify
• Updated Section VE of the Terms and Conditions
  ready for Cycle 7 1st extension
  straight-forward, 2nd or subsequent need
  justification

10
Constraints and the Peer Review

• New Guidelines
• 15 of observations
• Observation individual pointing, e.g. count
  monitoring sequence, or long observations split
  due to orbit
• Each panel given quota determined by ratio of
  requested to available constrained observations
• Instructed to abide by the quota, but talk to me
  if they needed/wished to go over
• Results
• Real time determination of use/quota for each
  panel allowed us to update quotas as needed
• No panel turned down a highly ranked proposal due
  to this quota

11
Suggestions from Panel Chairs Survey

• Organization generally very favorable comments
• Pundits get involved in review reports in
  advance of the review
• LP/VLP panel chairs (or panels) should meet on
  Wed pm to strategize on LP/VLPs
• Stop it being a race!
• Time should we add another morning?
• Too may junior/non X-ray panel members
• Starting much earlier to recruit panel chairs (5
  already) and reviewers
• Strong emphasis on inviting only senior people
  first (it is much easier to get junior people!)

12
Revised Observation Completion Policy

• Complete observation 90 (or more) of allocated
  time has been observed
• Exceptions, implemented 8 July 2005
• TOO/DDT due to scheduling restrictions
• Observations gt200 ksec, any remaining time gt 20
  ksec will be observed
• Exceptions, proposed for 1 Dec 2005
• Observations lt 5ksec, observed only once
• Observations with lt2 ksec remaining will be
  considered complete
• Policy posted on website and sent in an
  electronic bulletin
• Will be described in Cycle 8 Call for Proposals

13
Summary of Response to Jan 2005 Report

• EPO
• Complexity of Process
• NASA requirements are inherently complex. They
  are holding workshops. The EPO CfP will be
  updated to clarify.
• Low funding levels
• 2 of GO budget about 200K. No more funding is
  available, unless CUC should recommend using more
  of GO budget to fund EPO as opposed to GO
  science
• All other items should have been covered during
  the day