─юъєьхэЄ тч Є шч ъ¤°р яюшёъютющ ьр°шэ√. └фЁхё юЁшушэры№эюую фюъєьхэЄр : http://www.stsci.edu/hst/proposing/panel/CYCLE22Orientation.pdf
─рЄр шчьхэхэш : Unknown
─рЄр шэфхъёшЁютрэш : Mon Apr 11 02:58:31 2016
╩юфшЁютър:

TAC - June 8, 2014
Claus Leitherer

http://www.stsci.edu/hst/proposing/panel/CYCLE22Orientation.pdf

Cycle 22 Orientation

1

Phase I Schedule for Cycle 22
╖ ╖ ╖ ╖ ╖ ╖ ╖ ╖ Jan 6 April 11 April 29 May 28 June 8 - 11 June 11 - 13 June 19 Early July CP release Phase I deadline Download available for panelists Preliminary grades Panels meet TAC meets Director's Review Notifications

2

Proposals by Cycle
1400 1298 1200 1000 1025 863 800 600 400 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 Cycle 1053 914 906 1078 1046 949 747 727 733 556 427 396 502 821 1050 960 1135 1095 1007 1090

# Submitted

6/3/14

3

Orbits by Cycle
25000 21734 20000 17690 Requested Time 14272 14005 10732 8169 13543 14173 16236 24667 19674 17257 20771 17200 18676 16767 23096 19900 19742

15000

14668 15876

10000

8289 6473

5000

6303

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7N 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 Cycle
6/6/14

4

Summary Statistics
╖ 1135 Proposals in Cycle 22 (1095 in Cycle 21)
╖ 843 NASA, 229 ESA, 63 Other Countries

╖ 884 (822) GO for 19,990 (19,742) orbits
╖ 16 (17) Treasury for 2550 (2723) orbits ╖ 32 (30) Large for 3737 (3580) orbits ╖ 97 (109) Medium for 4609 (5043) orbits

╖ 51 (55) SNAPSHOT proposals for 5438 (6266) targets ╖ 200 (218) Archival proposals ╖ 4 (3) Pure Parallel programs for 1050 (730) orbits

5

Review schedule
Panels meet Monday morning ▐ noon Wednesday Panels review broad science areas "Mirror" panels minimize conflicts Panels review ╖ Regular (Small and Medium) GO proposals (1-74 orbits) ╖ Snapshot proposals (<200 targets) ╖ Regular Archive & Theory proposals ╖ Calibration proposals ╖ Panelists advise panel chair on Large/Treasury proposals ╖ Past Large/Treasury programs: http://archive.stsci.edu/hst/tall.html ╖ TAC meets Wednesday noon ▐ 5pm Friday ╖ TAC reviews ╖ Large GO (75 orbits) & Large Snapshot proposals ╖ Top-ranked Medium proposals from the panels ╖ Treasury GO proposals ╖ AR Legacy Proposals ╖ ╖ ╖ ╖

6

Types of Proposals
Standard proposals
GO SNAP Small (1-34 orbits); Medium (35-74); Large ( 75) Targets; no guarantees; <45 mins; 2-year viability

Special categories
Long-term ToO CVZ Calibrations
HST-Chandra HST-Spitzer HST-XMM HST-NOAO HST-NRAO

allocate time in C23, C24 if justified scientifically ultra-fast (<2 d) ToO: 1 activation allowed; 2-21 d ToOs: 8 activations; >21 d: no limit no penalty to observer if executed as non-CVZ Calibrate specific modes of HST observation Up to 400 ksec, 60 ksec time constrained Up to 60 hours, 20 hours maximum per proposal Up to 150 ksec Up to 15-20 nights available on most telescopes Up to 3% of the available time (North America)
7

UV Initiative
╖ A UV initiative is again supported to ensure the unique UV capabilities of HST are fully utilized while they still exist. ╖ The initiative uses orbit allocation targets to increase the share of primary GO observing time dedicated to UV observations. ╖ There is also a category of UV archival proposals, aimed at producing UV-specific high-level data products and tools for the Hubble archive, which will enable broader use of those datasets by the community.
8

UV Initiative (cont.)
╖ Each panel should aim to devote at least 40% of its orbit allocation to UV-specific science. ╖ The TAC should aim to devote at least 50% of its orbit allocation to UV-specific science. ╖ These allocations are targets, not quotas. UV-specific proposals recommended for acceptance must meet the usual requirement of high scientific quality set for all successful Hubble proposals. ╖ Proposals in this category are flagged as "UV Initiative" in APT.

╖ We received 368 GO's for 8501 orbits and 36 AR's.
9

Policy Issues

10

Conflict of Interest
Our goal is informed, unbiased discussion of each proposal
╖ Voting committee members should have neither direct nor indirect interest vested in the outcome of the review ╖ The subset of the review committee discussing the proposal should have sufficient knowledge to assess the science

We identify two types of conflict:

Major conflicts
н н н н Personal involvement (PI or Co-I) Recent former advisor/student of PI or Co-I Involvement in closely competing proposal (same targets or science) Close personal ties (family, etc.) with PI or Co-I

Minor conflicts
н Institutional conflict, i.e. same department/institution as PI or Co-I н Close collaborator with PI/Co-I on the proposal н Any other reason for discomfort
11

Close collaborators
Who qualifies as a close collaborator?
н Active collaborator on a current research program (including Cycle 22 HST proposals) н Active co-author on 3 or more papers in last 3 years
╖ i.e. more than a participant in a large project (e.g. SDSS)

н Active collaborator on several recent programs
╖ At least 3 projects completed in last 3 years

Key question: would my personal research benefit (or would there be an appearance of benefit) if this proposal is accepted? If the answer is yes, then there is a conflict
12

Conflict of interest
Procedures
н н н н Panelists sign Conflicts of Interest Disclosure form and return to PSS Chair (aided by PSS) is responsible for checking conflicts Note conflicts before discussing each proposal Minor conflicts (Institutional, Co-I collaborator):
╖ Conflicted panelist(s) can choose to participate in the proposal discussion

н Major conflicts (all others):
╖ Conflicted panelist(s) leaves the room during proposal discussion and during the vote

In all cases, conflicted panelists do not vote If in doubt, ask SMO/SPG for clarification.
13

Duplication policy
н NASA policy protects GTO programs and current GO programs against duplication by later-cycle GO programs; duplicate targets will be disallowed or embargoed н Duplications are defined as same target or field, same or similar instrument, similar mode, similar spectral range, similar exposure time. Consult SPG staff if in doubt. н The PI is responsible for noting duplications. Panels should approve duplications explicitly (in comments) or observations can be disallowed. н Same-cycle duplications: avoid duplicate targets within and between panels. No "forced collaborations'' allowed. н Cross-panel duplications resolved by Chairs of "mirror" panels
(@Breakfast meeting, 2nd/3rd days).

STScI instrument scientists will check accepted proposals for duplications
14

General guidance for Cycle 22
╖ Panel members should assume that all instruments will be performing nominally in Cycle 22 ╖ Panel members should not modify proposals unless there is a very strong scientific justification ╖ Panel members should not reject proposals based on technical considerations
н All proposals are reviewed by STScI after Phase I. If technical questions arise during the panel review, please summon a relevant expert.

╖ Panel members should not take scheduling considerations into account in grading proposals.

Concentrate on recommending the best science.. ...but recognize that it may not be possible to schedule some highly ranked programs
15

Panel Procedures

16

Panel Distribution in Cycle 22
╖ 14 panels with these science categories (no change from C21):
o o o o o o Planets 1/2: local and distant solar systems, exoplanets, debris disks Stars 1/2/3: cool+hot stars, late stages, low-mass stars, star formation, local ISM StPops 1/2: Galactic structure, resolved stellar populations in galaxies Galaxies 1/2/3: stellar content of galaxies, ISM in galaxies, dynamics, galaxy evolution AGN/IGM 1/2: AGN, QSO, IGM, QSO absorption lines COS 1/2: cosmology, lensing, galaxy clusters, surveys

17

Panel Review: Logistics
╖ Panel Chair runs meeting
н Select a Co-Chair to run the meeting if Chair has to leave for conflict and to assist with review of comments on day 3

╖ PSS maintains database, produces ranked lists, answer questions or summon STScI staff experts, as needed. ╖ Technical and Policy support is available from STScI staff:
н SPG (policy) н INS (instrument expertise) н OED (scheduling and implementation)

╖ Contact list by phone in each meeting room

18

Proposals for triage
Lowest 40% of panel/TAC proposals are marked for triage based on preliminary grades from panelists Why do we do this? ╖ Time constraints
н 80 proposals@15 mins = 1200 mins = 20 hours н 48 proposals@15 mins = 720 mins = 12 hours

╖ Optimization & efficiency
н Spend time discussing the best proposals н Avoid discussing proposals that are very unlikely to be approved

╖ Fairness
н Triaged proposals can be resurrected by non-conflicted panelists but... н Previously triaged proposals have rarely been approved

19

Panel Review: overview
╖ Each panel has a specific allocation of N orbits for Small proposals ╖ Medium proposals have a separate orbit allocation ╖ Snapshot & Archive/Theory allocations are drawn from a central pool ╖ Calibration proposals are drawn from a separate pool of orbits ╖ Panelists review and grade the proposals assigned to their panel, and produce a ranked list of Small and Medium programs that encompasses at least 2тN orbits ╖ All proposals receive (polite) comments ╖ Panelists comment on a subset of the TAC proposals
20

Medium Proposals
╖ Medium proposals will be reviewed by the panels and ranked together scientifically with the Small proposals ╖ The panels will not be charged any orbits for them. ╖ Highest ranked Medium proposals will proceed to the TAC for assessment alongside the Large programs. ╖ The TAC will then decide which Medium programs are recommended for approval. ╖ This system replaces the orbit subsidy that had been in use for medium-sized proposals in earlier cycles.
21

Detailed Procedures
1. Panelists with major conflicts of interest leave the room. STScI staff leave if PI or Co-I. 2. The Chair manages the process, may participate in the discussion but does not vote. 3. Primary reviewer summarizes and reviews proposal. Secondary reviewer adds supplementary comments. 4. Discussion among panelists. 5. Specify resource allocation: primary orbits, coordinated or pure parallel, proprietary period, targets (SNAP) or budget size (AR). 6. Vote on proposal via Web-Reviewer System. Those with minor conflicts
may participate in discussion but do not vote. EVERYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM (EXCEPT FOR THE CHAIR) MUST VOTE н NO ABSTENTIONS

7. Primary Reviewer is responsible for collating all relevant comments, and recording those comments via Web-Reviewer System.
22

TAC proposals & cross-panel overlap
Panelists are asked to comment on a subset of the TAC proposals
н Proposals are assigned to appropriate sets of mirror panels considering topic and proposal load н This allows more scope for specialist commentary, informing the chairs and aiding discussion in the TAC meeting н Consider overlap between TAC and panel programs and consider the ranking relative to the panel proposals н Same rules apply for conflict of interest as with panel proposals н Panelists are not required to vote on TAC proposals, but may choose to do so, at the panel chair's discretion, as a guide to relative rankings

Cross-panel issues
н Mirror panels can get similar proposals due to in-panel conflicts н After initial ranking, Chairs meet to identify, discuss and, if necessary, resolve overlapping proposals н Chairs discuss and resolve Medium proposals across mirror panels н If additional expertise is necessary, Chairs can ask for input from (subsets) of other mirror panels 23

Possible panel schedule
╖ Panels have ~70-90 proposals to discuss ╖ Discuss triage process at the outset
н Flag proposals that could be resurrected

╖ Discuss and grade non-triaged proposals (~14 hrs) ╖ Discuss and grade any resurrected triage proposals (~1 hr)
н Some panels prefer to group proposals by subject and intersperse the resurrected proposals

╖ Finalize ranking of Small, Medium, Snapshot, and Archival proposals and define "do not award" lower limit
н Panels should consider the scientific balance н Panels re-rank proposals without changing the grades

╖ Discuss TAC proposals ╖ Write final report and review comments ╖ Total ~ 20 hours

]

~5 hours

24

Proposal Comments
╖ Comments are required for all proposals (including triaged proposals); these are entered via the Web-Reviewer tool. ╖ Primary reviewer is responsible for writing the comments; add any comments arising from the discussion to produce a final set of comments for each proposal. ╖ Don't make up reasons for rejection н if a proposal was good, but just didn't quite make the cut, then say so. Be particularly careful near the allocation boundaries, and remember that highly ranked proposals may not be schedulable. ╖ Use Mandatory comments only to exclude targets [e.g. duplications] or to reduce observing time allocation. ╖ All other comments are advisory.
25

Grading the proposals: some suggestions

26

Grading process & panel responsibilities
╖ Keep all proposal types (GO, SNAP, AR) together and organize the discussion along science themes ╖ Maintain one panel score sheet with all proposals included. This ensures that the grading is done in a uniform way ╖ Produce a final ranked list that combines GO (Small+Medium), SNAP, and AR proposals. Use the same grading scale for all three types:
н Rank at least twice as many proposals as there are above cut-off line н Set a "do not award" lower limit н No need to rank carefully those proposals that clearly will not get accepted.

╖ Panel Chair [and Co-Chair] write a short summary, documenting the primary decisions of the panel, the reasoning that went into those decisions and the manner in which contentious issues were resolved .
н The summary should capture the logic and rationale of the panel's conclusions in sufficient detail so that it can be recalled and understood later by the STScI Director and/or the TAC
27

Confidentiality
╖ Remember that you should not discuss the outcome of the panel evaluations, now or in the future. ╖ Many panel members (and STScI and JHU staff) are also proposers; don't discuss results during breaks. ╖ If the panel wants to send a particularly important message to a proposer, use the comments.
28

Orbit allocations

29

Cycle 22 duration

╖ Cycle 22 will start on October 1, 2014 and end on September 30, 2015 ╖ ▐ Nominal 12 month cycle.

30

Cycle 22 Allocations
╖ 3400 orbits for GO (Large + Medium + Small)
н 1,800 for Small proposals (panels) н 600 for Medium proposals reviewed by panels and ranked by TAC н 1000 for Large/Treasury programs (TAC)

н TAC may choose to re-balance Small/Medium/Large split

╖ Orbit oversubscription is ~5:1, 8:1 and 6:1 for Small, Medium, and TAC, respectively ╖ SNAP: ~ 1000 targets available across panels
н (~1:5 of targets proposed)

╖ AR: no budget required in Phase 1
31

based on a combination of orbit and proposal pressure
Panel PLAN1 PLAN2 STARS1 STARS2 STARS3 STPOP1 STPOP2 GAL1 GAL2 GAL3 AGN/IGM1 AGN/IGM2 COS1 COS2 TAC Small GO props 57 53 68 70 71 51 44 48 49 45 49 60 32 38 52 Small GO orbits 584 534 600 690 763 649 650 731 641 714 728 907 348 465 6287 Medium GO props 6 8 5 3 2 9 13 9 4 10 8 5 7 8 Allocation 130 120 145 155 160 125 120 130 125 125 130 165 75 95 1000

Orbit Allocation

32

Questions????
╖ Please refer ALL policy questions to SPG staff!!!

33

After the TAC
╖ As usual, we welcome feedback on the TAC process
н Can we improve it н What were the main shortcomings н Can we make it "faster", "cheaper", "better"?

╖ We will send email to all TAC and Panel members requesting your views of the process

34

THANK YOU!!!!
╖ The TAC review is supported by 146 panelists ╖ 21 panelists from ESA member states ╖ ESA provides full funding for participation of ESA panelists ╖ Continuing partnership with ESA
35

Personnel & Logistics

36

Key STScI Staff
╖ Director's Office н Matt Mountain н Director н Kathy Flanagan н Deputy Director ╖ Science Mission Office. н Iain Neill Reid н SMO Head н Claus Leitherer н Head of Science Policies Group н Andrew Fox, Andy Fruchter, Janice Lee, Jennifer Lotz н SPG Astronomers н Brett Blacker н SPG Technical Manager н Sherita Hanna н SPG Administrative Staff н Martha Devaud н SPG Administrative Staff н Loretta Willers н ESA Administrative Staff ╖ Hubble Mission Office н Ken Sembach н HST Mission Office Head н Helmut Jenkner н HST Deputy Mission Office Head ╖ Operations & Engineering Division н Denise Taylor н Operation Planning Branch
37

Observers

╖ ╖ ╖ ╖

Mike Garcia - NASA Fred Lo н NRAO Antonella Nota н ESA Jennifer Wiseman н NASA

38