Evaluation Procedure & User Community Jack E. Crow Washington 11 December 2000

1. Evaluation Procedure & User Community Jack E. Crow Washington 11 December 2000 BESAC Subpanel Review of IPNS and LANSCE/Lujan Center

2. Proton Beam Power x Target Effectiveness x Moderator Optimization x Number and Type of Instruments x Quality of Instruments x Reliability x Facility Support x Users = Scientific Output BESAC Subpanel Review of IPNS and LANSCE/Lujan Center

3. IPNS LANSCE/Lujan Center Needs Improvement to be Competitive Needs Improvement to be Competitive Unacceptable Category Unacceptable Outstanding Outstanding Competitive Competitive S o ur ce R el ia bi l i t y I nst r um en tat i on Sup p o r t F ac i l i t ie s Sup p o r t S ta f f U s er s C o st E ffe ct i v e n e ss Op er at i on Sc ie nc e S te wa r d s hip Mana ge m e n t I mpac t BESAC Subpanel Review of IPNS and LANSCE/Lujan Center

4. Basis for Evaluation • DoE and other national reports • Neutron Sources for America’s Future “Kohn Report” (1993) • Neutron Sources and Applications (1994) • Neutron Sources Facility Upgrades and the Technical Specifications for Spallation Neutron Sources (1998) • Review Report-High Flux Isotope Reactor Upgrade and User Program (1998) • Cooperative Stewardship: Managing the Nation’s Multidisciplinary Users Facilities for Research with Synchrotron Radiation, Neutrons and High Magnetic Fields, NRC (1999) • Report of BESAC Subpanel on Neutron Scattering (2000) • Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields, NAP (2000) • ISIS 2000 Annual Report • IPNS/LANSCE Review Kickoff Meeting • October 12-13, 2000 • Requested Information • Source, Instruments, Reliability, Facilities Support, Staff, Users, Scientific Impact, Costs, Performance Milestones, Plans for the Future. • Review Subpanel Site Visits Presentation • LANSCE/Lujan Center, Nov. 14-15, 2000 • IPNS, Nov. 16-17, 2000 • Previous Review of Facilities • Solicited input from experts BESAC Subpanel Review of IPNS and LANSCE/Lujan Center

5. Information Request from Centers • The Source: • Brief description of the existing facility • Performance of the source: 5 year trends of availability, reliability, user schedules, operational data • Instruments: • Brief description of each instrument, research community served by each instrument, layout of facility, ranking of each instrument and beamline • Reliability of each instrument • Availability of beam time to different groups for each spectrometer, e.g., external users, instrument scientists, director’s discretion and other internal usage (including calibration and commissioning) • User demand: days requested and delivered on each instrument by scientific field, i.e., Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Engineering, Other. • Past 5 years: new investments, upgrades and maintenance in instruments • Support facilities: • oAvailability and planned facilities, e.g., sample preparation, computer analysis, etc. • Staff: • Size of staff and assignments, give a breakdown of the staff according to areas, i.e., accelerator, scientists, technicians, computing • Assessment of quality of the staff. • Users: • Assessment of quality of user research program: For the last 5-years: list 20 top publications sorted according to research area, citation index and impact; and list of awards given to users and staff • Summary of source and level of outside support for users • Distribution of users according to fields • User proposal review process and allocation of user time: users/year, experiments per year, and proposals per year. • Measure of user satisfaction • How is your facility increasing the neutron user base in the U.S.? What is being done to stimulate new science areas and broaden the user community? BESAC Subpanel Review of IPNS and LANSCE/Lujan Center

6. Impact: • The 20 most important papers over the past 5 years based on work done at your facility • List of all publications in last 5 years: Publications in refereed journals separated by work performed (i) at the facility by users or staff and (ii) at other facilities by staff; publications in conference proceedings, and identify the field and the instrument used. • Plenary lectures and major awards. • Data on publications per year with citations and papers per user. (This is only for papers published using the facility.) • Cost: • Operational, maintenance, upgrades and investment costs for the facility • Cost per paper • Cost per delivered beam day • DoE milestones and performance assessment: • Outside review reports • The Future: • Role for the facility for next few years, i.e, up to when SNS comes on line; upgrades that have been approved; and plans for new instrumentation • Plans to increase the neutron user base in the US • Vision and goals for the facility after SNS BESAC Subpanel Review of IPNS and LANSCE/Lujan Center

7. The User Community BESAC Subpanel Review of IPNS and LANSCE/Lujan Center

8. Total Awards made by NSF (all Directorates) and DoE/SC/OBES to university-based neutron scattering programs Total expenditures for university-based neutron scattering programs in 1996 dollars BESAC Subpanel Review of IPNS and LANSCE/Lujan Center

9. BESAC Subpanel Review of IPNS and LANSCE/Lujan Center