1 / 4

AI#24: GI Proposal Technical Evaluation

Proposal to assign responsibility to either the GSSC or Instrument Teams for conducting the technical feasibility evaluation of GI proposals. The evaluation will determine the technical feasibility of the proposals, but will not determine acceptance or rejection. Results will be provided to the scientific peer review panel and included in the feedback to the proposer.

soscar
Download Presentation

AI#24: GI Proposal Technical Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AI#24:GI Proposal Technical Evaluation David Band (GSSC/JCA-UMBC) Steve Ritz (GSSC)

  2. GUC Action Item #24 Action Item #24: Propose the responsible organization (Instrument Teams or GSSC) for running the technical feasibility evaluation of GI proposals.

  3. Proposal • The GSSC is responsible for administering the peer review of the GLAST GI proposals on behalf of NASA HQ. • the GSSC is responsible to ensure that a technical review of the proposals is included in the peer review process. • the GSSC will manage the flow of proposals to, and the evaluations from, the instrument experts who will carry out the technical review prior to the scientific peer review. • The instrument teams will provide the experts who will carry out the technical reviews in a timely manner. • these experts will determine whether a proposal is technically feasible, but will not determine whether the proposal should be accepted or rejected. • the wording of the charge to the experts for the evaluation will be reviewed by the GUC and will be available as part of the proposal instructions. • this is a significant contribution to the mission by the instrument teams. • The results of the technical review will be available to the science peer review panel and will be included in the feedback to the proposer, independent of outcome.

  4. Instrument Team Reaction • Both Peter and Chip accept this commitment of instrument team resources. • Chip added the following comments based on the CGRO experience: • “The conflict of interest problem is real, and involving as few instrument team members as needed will help control this.” • Recommends “narrowing the instrument reviewer's focus by requiring a section in the proposal specifically addressing technical feasibility.” • Peter also commented on the conflict of interest issue.

More Related