Paths to Effective Scientific Proposals and Collaborations

1. Paths to Effective ScientificProposals and Collaborations Luc Simard (James Di Francesco) Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics

2. In a meeting, if you come up with a good idea, you will be expected almost certainly to implement it yourself. Lesson #1:

3. Observing Proposals

4. Whee!

5. Proposals - Outline • Some golden rules • Scientific justification - Defining your idea • Sample definition • Strategy • Technical justification • Application process • Execution

6. Some Golden Rules • Be clear (obviously but ...) • Be concise (obviously but ...) • Your proposal is dead if you go beyond a page limit • Know your target audience • Time allocation committees are made up of members with a wide range of expertise • You should write your proposal for non-experts and experts - a very delicate balance • Context, context, context: Why should a planetary astronomer be excited about your galaxy formation proposal? You must make the TAC care.

7. Some Golden Rules (continued) • Pick your science goal very, very carefully • Avoid “swiss army knife” list of goals • Your proposal should target a specific astrophysical problem, and it should show that the proposed observations will unambiguously discriminate between possible solutions (ideally between two of them) • Your total observing time request should be strongly backed by your science goals • Avoid proposing incremental changes to an existing sample - this is not exciting • Similarly, avoid statements like “We will do these observations and see what we get” because TAC are not fond of “fishing expeditions”.

8. Some Golden Rules (continued) • Be sure that your proposal has not been done before!! Avoid duplication by searching relevant archives. • If your proposal is successful, congratulations and enjoy! If not, us feedback from TAC and external referees for improving your proposal and re-submit (unless major flaw was found...)

9. Strategy - Collaborations • Collaborations are a fact of astronomy life • The benefit of a given collaboration depends on your current situation. • Collaborations are motivated by: • Desire to pool observing time - international proposals from sometimes minor partner countries can muster a large amount of time • Desire to pool data - some datasets can be used for a variety of science goals • Desire to pool expertise - especially important for multi-wavelength projects • Large programs have a higher citation impact

10. Strategy - Collaborations (continued) • How to choose a collaboration: • Internal structure • Total democracy is not necessarily a good thing - a “benevolent dictator” is essential • Geographical distribution • Data access and publication policies • Communications (exploders, telecons, face-to-face meetings)

11. Strategy - Surveys and Campaigns • A lot of today’s astronomy is now driven towards survey (also called campaign) science. Good reasons …. • Well-executed surveys have a higher scientific impact in the literature (think SDSS) • Many new instruments have been especially built for survey work (MegaPrime, SCUBA2) • Large and statistically well-understood samples are obtained (think legacy archives) • Avoids “over-competition” i.e., lots of “three-night” projects trying to do the same thing • Surveys generate a lot of ancillary activity, e.g., follow-up studies • From an operational point of view, observatories like surveys because they are easier to support than a multitude of PI programs.

12. Strategy - Surveys and Campaigns (continued) • Calls for Survey Programs are issued by almost every observatory out there • IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION: Surveys may not be ideal for graduate theses if students want to take their thesis project from “A to Z”

13. Strategy - Multi-Wavelength Synergy • Must be astrophysically-driven • Assembling a well-justified multi-wavelength dataset is a powerful way to obtain observing time • Proposed observations may fill an important wavelength gap that will unlock crucial new science (e.g., GOODS-N observations with CFHT/WIRCAM) • If multiple facilities are needed to fill multiple gaps, careful consideration must be paid to each facility’s scheduling constraints. Otherwise, program may stretch over too many years!

14. Strategy - Multi-Wavelength Synergy (continued) • Backup plans must be in place in case some of the proposed observations may not be successfully acquired. These plans must be discussed in the proposal.

15. Application Process - Phase I and II • Application process is now split in two steps: • Phase I (Why you should get time) • Phase II (How granted time will actually be used) • Phase I • Connects TAC with proposers • Most important elements are the scientific and technical justifications • Some phase I tools: • Gemini: PIT • CFHT: Poopsy • HST: Astronomer’s Proposal Tool (APT) • Spitzer: SPOT • Chandra: Remote Proposal Submission (RPS)

16. Application Process - Phase I and II (continued) • Phase II • Connects Observatory with proposers • It is a detailed timeline of the entire observing program (down to the nearest minute) • Must be incredibly complete to avoid getting inadequate data - especially in queue mode! • Contains details on : • Target list and acquisition sequences • Observing sequence for each target • Instrm’tal config’s, int. times, dither patts • Required calibrations • Data quality metrics (e.g., S/N) • Notes to queue observers to guide real-time decision

17. Technical Justification • Instrumental configuration • Imager or spectrometer mode • Spatial resolution (array configuration) • Wavelength range (bandwidth) and spectral (velocity) resolution • Filters/grating etc. • Depth and areal coverage • Must show that all observations can be done with required S/N (image or in spectral line) in the total observing time request • What mapping strategy will be used? How is proposed mapping area justified (largest coherent structures/bubbles, cosmic variance, etc.)

18. Technical Justification (continued) • Time Budgets and Overheads • Observations must be planned down to the nearest minute • Overheads can be significant, i.e., 100% !! Examples include: • Telescope offsets (motion and settling) • Instrument re-configuration • Target acquisition • Detector read-out • Calibration during observations • Overheads must be included in your total time request as your on-sky time may be as low as 50%.

19. Technical Justification (continued) • Length of Time Request: • proportional to the amount of ancillary info about a target • proportional to the share of your particular institution has in the observatory • equal to the amount of time needed to get the job done (at first)

20. Technical Justification (continued) • Data Analysis and Results • Must convince TAC that you will be able to handle the data (type and volume) and get the reduction done in a short amount of time • What measurements will be produced and how do they address science goals • Use simulations or models to demonstrate the utility of the proposed data • Proprietary period? Typically 1 year. Zero proprietary time maximize scientific impact (Hubble Deep Field).

21. Scientific Justification - Defining Your Idea • Laying out the problem • State at the very beginning exactly what you want to do • Brief relevant history • Current status • Ramifications • Existing versus proposed observations • Describe existing data and their limitations (e.g., slits) • Describe how proposed observations will exactly address the science goals (e.g., IFU),

22. Scientific Justification - Defining Your Idea (continued) • Sample Definition • Selection procedure • Why interesting??? (Uniqueness is key) • Justify size! Often limited by reasonable amount of time one can request ... • Methodology and expected results • Brief description of instrumental configuration (expand in Technical Justification) • Brief description of analysis (expand in Technical Justification) • Description of output measurements • Anticipate some outcomes (if possible) and comment on their implications

23. Application Process - Phase I (Continued) EXAMPLE “Proto-Disks” at z ~ 1 in the Hubble Deep Field - North Gemini North Telescope 23 hours GMOS/IFU 2004B/2005A

24. Application Process - Phase I (Continued)

25. Application Process - Phase I (Continued)

26. Application Process - Phase I (Continued)

27. Application Process - Phase I (Continued)

28. Application Process - Phase I (Continued)

29. Application Process - Phase I (Continued)

30. Application Process - Phase I (Continued)

31. Application Process - Phase I (Continued)

32. Application Process - Phase I (Continued)

33. Application Process - Phase I (Continued)

34. Application Process - Phase I (Continued)

35. Execution - Classical Mode • PROS: • Full control over observing • Expert, real-time quality verifications and decisions on next targets • Direct access to staff expertise during obs • Very inspiring visits to observatories (site, facilities, staff contacts) • Direct observing experience will make your next proposals better

36. Execution - Classical Mode (continued) • CONS: • Adverse weather conditions will put you out of luck - it will probably take 0.5-1.0 yr to get back on the telescope (no TAC guarantee!). This is bad if you are trying to get your thesis done. • Must become familiar with the instruments quickly - means that you may be on a very steep learning curve for the first half night even if you used the instrument before • Scheduling is not flexible - quantum of time is one night ... something 0.5 night • Time consuming • Loss of some functioning efficiency due to environmental factors (e.g., high-altitude)

37. Execution - Queue Mode • PROS: • Flexible scheduling • Essential for synoptic studies • Rapid follow-ups (e.g., GRBs) • Coordinated observations • Observations remain in queue until executed - a BIG PLUS • Time savings (important if you are using multiple facilities) • Makes use of experienced observers (in principle ...) • Makes large, community-based programs possible (think CFHTLS, SDSS) • Better efficiency from an observatory perspective

38. Execution - Queue Mode (continued) • CONS: • Lack of connection with observations (eavesdropping helps a bit here) • No room for real-time decisions based on incoming data • Observing programs must be defined in excruciating details down to detailed sequencing - some parameters hard to define if you have never use telescope • “Nobody knows your project like you do” • Queue priority scheme is still a black art - some observatories have not mastered it yet • Chances that observations will be executed may depend on poorly understood/publicized constraints (“queue encourages poor condition proposals”)

39. Execution - Queue Mode (continued) Additional Considerations: - Queue mode is often only option, e.g., space-based telescopes, WIRCAM/MegaPrime @ CFHT - Community has embraced it (Gemini thought ~50/50, users wanted ~90/10) - Other opportunities must be given to students to gain observing experience

40. Publications (By far your most important task ...)

41. Almost done!

42. Define Your Goals • Spend your efforts on papers for which you will be lead author. They are worth a lot more. • Be realistic! It will always take a lot longer than you thought to write your paper • As for observing proposals, keep your paper focussed on one or two ideas at most. • Do not be “data hungry” - of course, a paper will always benefit from more data, but you have to learn to decide when enough is enough. • Similarly, learn when to “freeze” your results - better data reduction is always around the corner.

43. Writing • Be clear, concise BUT complete • You can use “we”, “I” or a neutral form, but stick with choice throughout the paper • Use consistent verb tense throughout paper • A useful process is to: • Start by laying out the “skeleton” of the paper to break the ice, and create figures • Start by writing the “easy” parts (e.g., data reduction) • Go through a full “brain dump” where you do not pay much attention to word crafting • Refine/verify ideas and overall organization • Work through word crafting • Proof-read!!

44. Structure of a Paper • Abstract (crucial) • Introduction (“setting the stage”) • Sample Selection and Observations • Data Reduction and Analysis • Results • Discussion (“Putting it all together”) • Conclusions (“Put here what you really want the reader to remember”) • Acknowledgements (don’t forget funding agencies!)

45. Draft Phase and Team Submission • Expect to be going through multiple iterations with your collaborators • Factor in that your collaborators have their own time constraints • When you circulate a draft within your team, set a deadline for feedback!!! • Although this may seem more time-consuming than writing a paper alone, view this as a pre-referee process. Your submission and acceptance will actually take less time and will go more smoothly. • DO NOT EVER SUBMIT A PAPER WITHOUT THE GREEN LIGHT OF ALL THE CO-AUTHORS...obvious but you would be amazed!

46. Submission • Choose journal carefully • Non-refereed publications carry very little weight • Some journals have no page charges (e.g., MNRAS) • Make sure you are using the latest template! • Respect page limits • Pay attention to journal requirements on figures/plots • Keep in mind that months can go by between submission and acceptance

47. Dealing with a referee report • Do not be discouraged! • Read comments carefully to see what referee meant • Sometime journal scientific editor will make his/her own comments • DO NOT try to argue with the referee. DO what the referee asks unless the referee is absolutely wrong. • In cases where you disagree with the referee at a fundamental level, you can request a second referee - this will lengthen acceptance process • Prepare revised version of paper • Prepare a response to the referee’s comments. Be very systematic. Go through each point raised by the referee • Re-submit!

48. Dissemination of Results • astro-ph: • Only accepted papers PLEASE • To save paper, do not submit papers in manuscript format! • Talks: • Give a talk every time you are given the opportunity • If you are visiting somewhere, contact their seminar organizer beforehand and offer to give a talk - be bold

49. Dissemination of Results • Conferences: • YOU MUST ABSOLUTELY GO TO CONFERENCES. At least once a year. • Choose your conference carefully for maximum impact (smaller group with a more targeted focus, plenty of time for discussions and interactions, etc.) • Give a talk! Posters are OK but not nearly as effective • Identify interesting people and seek them out during coffee breaks