!Converted with LaTeX2HTML 95.1 (Fri Jan 20 1995) by Nikos Drakos (email@example.com), CBLU, University of Leeds >
The Users' Committee discussed the nature of AXAF observing proposals and the proposal review process. It asked the ASC to investigate the advisability of electronic submission of the main body of the text in addition to the usual basic information and target lists. Separate budgets were recommended (for approved proposals). It was also recommended that the NASA Research Announcement be worded so that a budget office does not have to approve the initial proposal for observing time but a Unit Chair's signature would be sufficient.
The Users' Committee recommended that technical reviews not make science judgements and that the technical reviews are sent to the proposer.
The existing review system was discussed including procedures for avoiding conflict of interest. The system as practiced was deemed to be satisfactory. The importance of a competent review was emphasized. It was, however, suggested that reviewers not be too specialized on a panel reviewing a broad range of subjects. If only one or two people on a panel know about a topic, the Peer Review Committee might adopt their recommendations without sufficient discussion.