首页> 外文会议>Conference on Observatory operations >Proposal Review Rankings: The influence of reviewer discussions on proposal selection
【24h】

Proposal Review Rankings: The influence of reviewer discussions on proposal selection

机译:提案审查排名:审阅者讨论对提案选择的影响

获取原文

摘要

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.
机译:美国宇航局的伟大观察者的望远镜时间分配过程涉及天文社区的时间和专业知识的大量承诺。年度审查会议通常有100名外部参与者。除了准备时间,阅读和评分提案的两周之外,每个评论家还在会议上花了3-6天。审稿人根据在会议之前根据个人阅读而等等提案,并在广泛的主题审查面板中讨论后再次级别。我们总结了这里,如果在没有面板符合并讨论提案的情况下,如果选择的选择已经严格完成,则如何改变三个Spitzer观测循环的审查过程的结果。审查会议期间分级的变化对所选建议的最终清单有实质性影响。如果只是使用初步排名来选择初步排名,则不会包括约30%的选定建议。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号