An overview of the virtual panel meeting process.

Discussion

During the review meeting, proposals are discussed and re-graded in turn. The Primary starts the discussion, the Secondary comments next, and then each (unconflicted) panelist is given an opportunity to comment in turn before the floor is opened for general discussion. After the discussion, each proposal is graded, with every unconflicted, present panel member voting on each proposal. Guidance for grading proposals is given in the section on Selection Criteria and Scoring System.

Ranking

Once all proposals have been graded, the ranked list is compiled by the PSS for review. The ranked list can include the GO, SNAP, and AR proposals that are assigned to the discussion panel. Each panel has a separate resource allocation for small and medium proposals. The cutoff in the ranking is set by the allocation to small proposals; medium proposals need to lie above that cutoff to be considered for acceptance. Panels can re-rank proposals to take account of factors such as programmatic balance, scientific merit, and duplications.

Team Expertise Review

Once the ranked list is finalized, panels are given the opportunity to review the team expertise submissions, but only for the proposals recommended for implementation. Panelists should raise specific proposals for discussion only if they have significant concerns regarding the team's ability to achieve the science goals. If there is consensus that there are clear, compelling deficiencies in the expertise, the panel should document those for the Director's consideration. Proposals can only be eliminated; removal will not elevate a proposal below the allocation line.

EC Proposals in Topical Panels

A subset of the Large, Treasury, & Pure Parallel Proposals will be assigned to each panel. Panelists should read these proposals ahead of the panel meeting. Panelists do not grade those proposals. However, they should prepare to discuss those proposals and identify strengths and weaknesses to help the Chair and Vice Chair when those proposals are discussed and graded by the Executive Committee. Given the time limitations and the workload, it is at the discretion of the panel Chair and Vice Chair to decide on which proposals they would like to receive feedback, i.e. for which proposals the panel feedback will be most useful for the Executive Committee discussion. It is also at their discretion to decide how to distribute the EC proposals amongst the discussion panelists, whether to solicit feedback from all the panelists, or to distribute proposals to subsets of them following a primary/secondary scheme.    

These EC proposals may cover a wide range of science areas, and some may not correspond to the panel science category. This is because the proposals sent will be based on what your panel Chair and Vice Chair have been assigned, and the EC members are expected to evaluate proposals in a wide range of science areas.  The Call for Proposals explicitly recommends that all EC proposals should be written for an appropriately broad audience, as they will be evaluated by reviewers with various expertise within astronomy, but few will have expertise within the broad science area of the proposal, and it is possible none will have expertise in the specific subfield of the proposal. 

Feedback Comments

Every proposal, including triaged proposals, must receive Proposal Feedback Comments. Those comments should reflect the primary selection criteria. The Primary and Secondary reviewers are responsible for collating those comments; primary and secondary reviewers should enter their preliminary comments into the reviewer tool in advance of the panel meeting. Graders are also encouraged to enter their comments, even if they are brief, in the “Remarks” section in SPIRIT; this information is very valuable for the primary and secondary reviewers when writing feedback comments, and specially so if the proposal is triaged and not discussed during the meeting. 

There will be an opportunity to modify and adjust those proposal feedback comments during and after the meeting, incorporating feedback from the other reviewers and the discussion, but only limited time is available. The final version of the proposal feedback comments is sent verbatim and must be couched in an appropriately respectful manner. In the context of comment writing, reviewers are forbidden from uploading proposal content or review materials to GAI tools since this violates the confidentiality of the review process.

Next: Final Ranking