JCMT External Review Guidelines

Background

Applications for observing time on JCMT are assessed by the JCMT Time Allocation Committee (TAC), which is composed of astronomers from each of the partner regions who are the professional peers of the applicants. Their assessments rely upon the opinions of expert referees on the scientific merit of the proposals.

Technical feasibility is assessed separately by JCMT personnel.

Completing the Review

After entering an invitation code or from your review list you can view the proposal and edit your review. You may ‘Save’ your report at any time, and any number of times. The review editing page will guide you through the following aspects of the proposal in making your assessment of its suitability:

Scientific justification

  • How do you rate the scientific aims of the proposal? Are there conflicting / confusing goals?
  • Is the proposed analysis feasible and well-described?
  • Have the potential difficulties been raised and discussed?

Where would you place this proposal within the following scale?

  • Extremely thorough and compelling.
  • Convincing and well described.
  • Adequate, with minor problems.
  • Inadequate (too brief, confusing, incomplete or incorrect).

The plan for observing and data reduction

  • Are the details of the program dealt with / understood?
  • Are the selected target objects the best choice for the proposal?
  • Does the selected telescope / wavelength / instrument best address the science goals of the proposal?

Where would you place this proposal within the following scale?

  • Thorough and clearly understood.
  • Correct and well described.
  • Adequate, with minor problems.
  • Inadequately described or poorly understood.

Urgency of the proposed observations

Where would you place this proposal within the following scale?

  • Timely and competitive: must be done now.
  • Urgency is not a major consideration.

There is also a free-format space on the review page for any additional comments you may have about the proposal. If you feel this application is not, as it stands, of the highest scientific quality, please suggest how it might be improved in future submissions. You might also wish to comment on the applicants’ competence to carry out the proposed project to a successful conclusion. Please mark any comments which you feel should be communicated back to the applicant(s). One of the TAC assessors will make that contact.

There is no need to attempt an independent assessment of the technical feasibility of the proposal: observatory personnel will check whether the requested integration time is correct, whether the telescope and instrument will perform the observations as requested, etc. Any such comments, however, perhaps from your own previous experience, will be welcomed.

“Rating”

Finally, there is a box on the form for an overall rating of the proposal. Please give a numerical rating on the following scale:

100 A clear proposal with potentially seminal results.
75 A potentially seminal project that has perhaps not been clearly explained or has minor flaws. Rating is given for potential for good science.
50 A solid proposal which ought to get time — depending on competition for RA/Dec and time left after allocating higher ranked proposals.
25 A proposal with some flaw.
0 A proposal with serious flaws either in concept or design.

Integer intermediate values (e.g. 87, 62, 37, 12) are also acceptable.

Other Considerations

  • The JCMT is heavily over-subscribed for periods of good weather (bands 1–2). Successful proposals that require such weather will need to show potential for producing seminal results.
  • Please do not approach the applicant(s) directly. Assessors will follow up on points requiring clarification.

Confidentiality

If you wish any of your comments to be copied to the applicants as part of their feedback, please indicate which comments in your text. Otherwise all of your comments will be considered confidential.