Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire

1. Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire • Circulation: 15 people (12 chairs, 3 pundits) • Responses: 8 (7 chairs, 1 pundit) • In your opinion (somewhat speculative given that the observations have yet to be made), is the Cycle 5 allocation between normal, LP, and VLP likely to produce science at the high levels expected from Chandra? Was the time allocated between normal, LP, and VLP proposals appropriate? If not, what should the allocation be? • 8: balance good for Cycle 5 • Comment: panel had freedom to move time between LP and VLP and voted not to do so • Recommend: review, using metrics, in Cycle 7 + • Recommend: monitor science balance of VLPs Belinda Wilkes, CDO

2. Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire (cont) • With respect to your panel, was the quality of the lower-ranking approved LP or VLP proposals (those just above the pass/fail line) higher or, at least as high, as the highest-ranking, but unapproved, normal proposals (those just below the pass/fail line)? • 7: approved VLP/LP higher quality than just failing GO, 1 disagreed • 2 said opposite: failing LP was of higher quality than passing GO • Agreed that standards should be higher for LP/VLP given large time allocation Belinda Wilkes, CDO

3. Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire (cont) • In your opinion, was there a significant difference (other than observing time) in the nature of the LP and VLP programs? For example, did the VLP proposals address science questions that would not have been addressed properly otherwise or, was the nature of the approved programs different in some way, such as the VLP being more of an archive or "Legacy" nature than the LPs. • 5 Y, 2 N , general feeling that Legacy value is higher and that proposals which were similar but longer than GOs did not fare as well. Belinda Wilkes, CDO

4. Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire (cont) • Do you have any recommendations regarding the peer review process for consideration in planning future cycles? • Generally happy with organisation • Big Project Panel: • more pre-defined structure for BPP, work w/chair in advance • Allow time to read highly ranked LP/VLP, add 1 day?! • Mandate proper presentation of highly ranked proposals • Topical panels: • circulation of panel member names < review • List of proposals by secondary and primary reviewer • LAN in panel rooms • Projector for spreadsheet • Pre-plan discussion order within panels • Telecon is hard • Specific allocation for high-risk proposals Belinda Wilkes, CDO

5. Changes in Cycle 6 • Operations/observation planning: • Pitch angle restrictions – impact on time constrained observations > 50 ksecs • Ability to link archive and observing proposals • Bakeout: see later in agenda • Peer Review planning: • Website: • track reviewer status, travel + address information • personalized access to proposals, reports etc • access to Non-disclosure forms, review information • Proposal distribution: CD and/or hardcopy, to be collected at review • Reports: TBD, we hope to move away from diskettes Belinda Wilkes, CDO

6. IIR OBSERVATION (1) • CONTROL OF OBSERVERS’ PROPOSAL INFORMATION • Proper measures may not have been taken to fully protect and control information provided in the investigators’ proposals. • Current review process could allow inappropriate dissemination of sensitive information (e.g., salaries, intellectual capital). • Cycle 5 review did not verify collection/disposal of proposer CD’s • Requirement for individual salary data is concern of proposers • RECOMMENDATION: Investigate additional controls to reduce the possibility of inappropriate dissemination of sensitive data, including minimizing proposal distribution, verification of proper disposal of proposal data, and elimination or masking of individual salary information. Belinda Wilkes, CDO

7. Response to IIR “Observation” • CXC will review procedures and controls for safeguarding sensitive information, areas to be considered include: • Completeness of procedures for safeguarding proprietary information • Increased training for all involved in peer review • Earlier collection of non-disclosure forms • Minimize number of people with access • Restricting transfer of electronic files • Verifying destruction of hardcopies and CDs • Methods for investigating misuse of information • Budget reviewers need for information • Physical security • Timescale: completed to support Cycle 6 review Belinda Wilkes, CDO

8. CXC User Communication • Website: information, documentation, software etc. • Helpdesk search, submission, answer questions • USINT: observation planning • Electronic Bulletins and Announcements: as needed, approximately monthly • Newsletter: annual (electronic and hardcopy) • AAS Exhibit: twice a year • Workshops: • CIAO : 5 to date, ~25 people per workshop • Calibration: annual since 2001 • Electronic announcements of data readiness Belinda Wilkes, CDO

9. Helpdesk Statistics Belinda Wilkes, CDO

10. Topic Distribution of Helpdesk Tickets Belinda Wilkes, CDO

11. Observation Planning: USINT • Procedures – posted on web page • All Observers/PIs are contacted to confirm observational parameters • Allowed changes are made at CXC and confirmed with Observer/PI • Restricted changes (e.g. instrument, coordinates, constraints) must be justified and approved by CDO. CDO review includes check for conflicts with other programs Belinda Wilkes, CDO

12. Cost Review Results (FDS) ------------------------------------------------------budget request no. of budget approved/fair-share proposals f-s intermediate as-requested-------------- --------- ----- ------------ ------------0.00 60.50-0.95 7 - - 70.95-1.05 143 - - 1431.06-1.15 161.16-1.30 11 2 2 71.31-1.60 10 1.61-2.10 7 1 6 -2.11-3.50 2 Belinda Wilkes, CDO