I General Plan for Cycle 5 Proposals
- -------------------------------------
Important changes
- --------------------
RPS now has preferences
RPS now allows logarithmic monitoring intervals
RPS will check target coordinates upon submission
Proposals will be sent to reviewers as hardcopy and on CD
Large Projects will be evaluated by 2 panels
GTO proposals
- -------------
Will list Observer as PI.
Will have cover classifying as GO for peer review.
Panels will first rank all proposals, then GTO proposals
will be identified.
GO Proposals
- ------------
Number of proposals expected:
Type cyc 4 cyc 5 estimate
- ----- ------ --------------
GO/TOO 703 700
GTO 10 10
LP 47 40
VLP - 20
Arch 39 40
Theory 28 30
- ------ ----- -----
total 827 840
Number of Reviewers and Workload
- --------------------------------
If we require that each LP and VLP be evaluated by 2 panels,
the number of proposals to be read is 840 + 60 = 900.
There will be 12,300 ks available for GO/TOO proposals.
Plan on 12-15 panels, 8 reviewers/panel.
12 panels 75 proposals/panel including 10 LP/VLP,
1025 ks time allotment, 96 reviewers.
15 panels 60 proposals/panel including 8 LP/VLP
820 ks time allotment, 120 reviewers.
CXC Technical Review
- --------------------
TOO proposals by MP
Other constrained proposals by MP
Proposals for bright sources by SOT
LETG/HETG proposals by SOT/Cal
Pre-review Grades
- -----------------
Make sure proposals to panelists 4 weeks before review.
Require preliminary grades 5 days before review.
CXC will call reviewers who are late with grades.
CXC make rank-ordered list for each panel which delineates
(e.g.) top 3-4, bottom 30-40.
CXC will recommend that the panels not spend much time with these.
(Write reports for bottom half at end of first day. Use primary
and secondary comments. CXC already formats. Invite one panelist
to come a day early and write reports for lowest ranked before
review?)
II Limit Chandra projects for successful proposers??
- -----------------------------------------------------
For discussion, not for cycle 5
- -------------- ---
Only purpose is to increase number of successful PIs in each review.
In cycle 4, there were 201 GO observing proposals accepted
(239 -9 th -20 arc -9 GTO = 201)
The number of GO PIs was 169
(197 -8 th -14 arc -6 GTO = 169)
observing time per proposal was 16000/201 = 80 ks
observing time per PI was 16000/169 = 95 ks
So, for each 1000 ks project, there are 10 fewer PIs participating.
For each 300 ks project, there are 3 fewer PIs participating.
Limit winners of LP and VLP to one observing project?
If this had been done in Cycle 4, ~10 more small proposals
would have been possible.
III A History of Fair-share Costs
- ----------------------------------
C = fair-share cost
T = total observing time
N = number of targets
J = difficulty factor;
= 0.9 if analysis rated `easy' by the peer review
= 1.0 if analysis rated `average' by the peer review
= 1.2 if analysis rated `difficult' by the peer review
Cap of 250 applied to any fair-shares calculated to be over 250.
Proposers and panels told that costs above fair-share are OK if
justified. Fair-shares normalized so sum adds to 0.96 of funds
available, the remaining 4% is reserved for over-fair-share approvals.
Cycle 1: There was no fair-share, funds available equaled money requested
- -------
Fair-share formula generated recognizing that everyone needed effort
to set up and learn the software and that longer observations
generally were more time-consuming to analyze than short ones.
Cycle 2: C = (30 + 0.45T)J
- -------
Cost-review panels were asked for suggestions for calculating
fair-share costs. Several suggestions received and formula adopted in
which cost proportional to sq root of time and forth root of number of
targets.
Cycle 3: C = 5.7(N^^1/4)(T^^1/2)J
- -------
Two users complained that the funds available for simple projects were
inadequate so constant term reinstated.
Cycle 4: C = 10 + 4.6(N^^1/4)(T^^1/2)J
- -------
No complaints yet but results just released.
Sample Fair-share Costs (in k$, average difficulty)
- ---------------------------------------------------
time targets cyc 2 cyc 3 cyc 4
- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
10 1 34.5 18 24.5
100 1 75 57 56
100 3 75 75 70.5
100 10 75 101.3 81.8
300 1 165 98.7 89.7
300 3 165 129.9 104.8
300 10 165 175.5 141.7