Ranking of proposals

Ranking of proposals

The review panel members rank the proposals according to the following criteria:

Lack of one of the first 4 criteria is eliminatory.

1. Scientific excellence

2. Capacity of the team: expertise to perform experiment / to analyse data / publications

3. Innovative character

4. Efficient use of SR beamtime

5. Clear presentation

- Failure to submit an experimental report without good reason (illness, late scheduling of experiment….) means rejection of the proposal.

- Publication, for a specific project or sub project (BAG) is expected within 2 years of the first experiment. Failure to publish after this period means rejection of a continuation project unless detailed experimental report explains, to the satisfaction of PRC, why publication was not possible.

 
They assign each proposal a grade and rank them within each grade:

Grade 9 à 7 : proposals which must be accepted because of scientific merit or ambitious instrumental development;

Grade 6 à 4 : proposals which should be accepted if there is sufficient beamtime;

Grade 3 à 1 : proposals which should not be accepted due to having neither not sufficient scientific merit nor technical justification.

They adjust the amount of requested beamtime if necessary.

They recommend the allocation of beamtime on the most appropriate beamline.

Technical and safety assessment

Prior to peer review committee meetings, the Beamline Manager assesses the beamline appropriateness and the technical feasibility of each proposal.
 
If the proposal is not technically feasible, and after a contact with the main proposer to define possible ameliorations which could make it feasible, he/she recommends that no beamtime be allocated.
 
At the same time, the Safety Group assesses the safety implications of each proposal, with the help of the beamline staff.
 
If possible, they suggest necessary improvements which could make the proposal acceptable. If it is not possible, the proposal is withdrawn.
 
This information is provided to peer review committees.