首页> 外文会议>Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems II >Proposal Review Rankings: The influence of reviewer discussions onproposal selection
【24h】

Proposal Review Rankings: The influence of reviewer discussions onproposal selection

机译:提案审阅排名:审稿人讨论对提案选择的影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

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:美国宇航局大天文台的望远镜时间分配过程需要天文界投入大量的时间和专业知识。年度审查会议通常有100位外部参与者。每位审阅者除了准备一两周的准备时间,阅读和评分建议外,还会在会议上花费3-6天的时间。审阅者在会议之前根据他们的个人阅读对提议进行评分,并在广泛的,基于主题的审阅小组中进行讨论后对提议再次评分。如果在严格的基础上不进行小组讨论和讨论提案的前提下进行选择,那么我们在这里总结了三个Spitzer观测周期的评审过程结果将如何改变。审核会议期间的评分更改对选定提案的最终清单有重大影响。如果仅使用初步排名进行选择,那么大约30%的选定提案将不会被包括在内。

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