Translator Disclaimer
12 July 2008 Proposal review rankings: the influence of reviewer discussions on proposal selection
Author Affiliations +
The telescope time allocation process for NASA's Great Observatories involves a substantial commitment of time and expertise by the astronomical community. The annual review meetings typically have 100 external participants. Each reviewer spends 3-6 days at the meeting in addition to one-two weeks of preparation time, reading and grading proposals. The reviewers grade the proposals based on their individual reading prior to the meeting and grade them again after discussion within the broad, subject-based review panels. We summarize here how the outcome of the review process for three Spitzer observing cycles would have changed if the selection had been done strictly based on the preliminary grades without having the panels meet and discuss the proposals. The changes in grading during the review meeting have a substantial impact on the final list of selected proposals. Approximately 30% of the selected proposals would not have been included if just the preliminary rankings had been used to make the selection.
© (2008) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Lisa J. Storrie-Lombardi, Nancy A. Silbermann, Luisa M. Rebull, Seppo Laine, and Megan Crane "Proposal review rankings: the influence of reviewer discussions on proposal selection", Proc. SPIE 7016, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems II, 701622 (12 July 2008);


The servo control system of KDUST telescope
Proceedings of SPIE (July 18 2014)
Multiwavelength time allocation: the wave of the future
Proceedings of SPIE (July 25 2000)
SPICA mission for mid- and far-infrared astronomy
Proceedings of SPIE (July 12 2008)
SMARTS revealed
Proceedings of SPIE (July 29 2010)
Early science results from SOFIA
Proceedings of SPIE (September 17 2012)

Back to Top