Status of AMO proposal call and review process

1. Status of AMO proposal call and review process Goals of LCLS Access Policy Tentative operation plan for LCLS and the instruments Instrument Teams Proposal evaluation process, Proposal submission, Outcome of 1st Call for Proposals Proposal Review Panel (PRP) “Science driven commissioning” Jochen R. Schneider Visiting Professor of Photon Science at SLAC Head of LCLS Experimental Facilities Division

2. Goals of LCLS Access Policy • It is the objective of the LCLS program to attract a large number of diverse users and to enable a broad set of important experiments that take advantage of the unique capabilities of the LCLS. • In LCLS steady-state operation75% of the time available for photon science experiments will be general user time and will be assigned following the LCLS proposal selection procedure, based upon the scientific quality of the proposals as judged by peer review. The remaining 25% of the photon science beam time may be allocated for in-house research, instrument maintenance and a Director’s Reserve. All access will be through the LCLS proposal review process

3. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Start of commissioning and early operation Start of steady state operation Maintenance 4,260 2,160 2,160 2,160 1,960 1,960 AMO 09-09 09-11 XPP 06-10 06-11 Machine studieselectrons 2,750 1,300 1,300 1,300 900 900 CXI 01-11 01-12 Machine studiesphotons 1,250 1,300 1,300 1,300 900 900 XCS 06-11 06-12 Photon scienceexperiments 500 4,000 4,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 Tentative operation plan for LCLS [hours per fiscal year] Tentative operation scheme of DOE funded instruments Tentative operations plan for LCLS and instruments Near Experimental Hall SXR AMO XPP CXI XCS MEE Far Experimental Hall

4. AMO(instrument scientist: John Bozek) L. DiMauro (OSU, leader) N. Berrah (WMU) • XPP(Instrument scientist: David Fritz) • K. Gaffney (SLAC, leader) • D. Reis (Stanford) • T. Tschentscher (DESY) • J. Larsson (Lund Inst Tech) • CXI(Instrument scientist: Sebastien Boutet) • J. Hajdu (SLAC + Uppsala U, leader) • H. Chapman (CFEL-DESY) • J. Miao (UCLA) • XCS(Instrument scientist: Aymeric Robert) • B. Stephenson (ANL, leader) • K. Ludwig (Boston U) • G. Grübel, DESY Instrument Team- and Co-Team-Leader They act as the points of contact between the team members and the LCLS instrument scientists and management. They have helped to define the layout of the AMO and LUSI instruments. They have helped to define and promote the science in the thrust areas.

5. Proposal evaluation process After consultation with the SAC, the LCLS management invited scientists from outside SLAC and two non-voting representatives of LCLS management to serve on the LCLS Proposal Review Panel (PRP). There are 2 experts for each scientific thrust area, but PRP will consult additional experts when needed. The PRP will review all proposals for experiments at LCLS and rank each on a five-point scale from 1 down to 5, and explain the ranking in a written statement to the applicants. Based on the outcome of the proposal evaluation process the PRP will evaluate the appropriate balance of scientific fields and use of the instruments including the planed HED and SXR beamlines. This statement will be further discussed in the LCLS SAC which may recommend a modification of the amount of beamtime to be allocated to the different scientific thrust areas. Beamtime assignment will be done by LCLS management on the basis of the PRP ranking of the proposals and after consultation of the beamline scientists.

6. Proposal submission Authors, Proposal Title, Scientific Area, Experiment Type, Instrument At least 4 PDF files should be uploaded. Abstract (1 page): A concise summary of the proposal. Scientific Case (1-5 pages): Explains why this experiment is interesting and worth doing. In particular, why is the LCLS facility required for this experiment? Experimental Procedure (1-3 pages): Should give enough information so that the technical feasibility of this experiment at the requested LCLS instrument can be evaluated. Capability of Team (1-3 pages): Who will be participating in each aspect of this work, and what role will each person play? Who will be coming to SLAC? Who will be preparing the samples? Who will be analyzing the data? A list showing names, affiliations, and roles in this experiment would be best. What previous relevant work have these people done? What were the results of any previous LCLS experiments by this group? Provide references. Safety Hazards, Description of Sample

7. Outcome of 1st LCLS call for proposals “Experiments at the AMO beamline” 28 proposals were received – 19 in the field of AMO, 6 for imaging experiments, and 1 for diagnostics, detector and damage studies, respectively. All together 219 scientists are involved in these proposals, many of them in more than one. Australia 4 Ireland 1 China 2 Italy 8 Czech Republic 4 Japan 6 Denmark 1 Netherlands 4 Finland 1 Poland 3 France 1 Sweden 26 Germany 70 United Kingdom 1 India 4 United States 83 In any case, after submission of the proposals LCLS management will seek additional input from the instrument scientists regarding experiment feasibility and from the LCLS safety officer. The whole dossier is then forwarded to the Proposal Review Panel (PRP) .

8. PRP members Christine Back (San Diego) Janos Kirz (LBNL) Magid Chergui (ETH Lausanne) Dwayne Miller (Toronto) Lew Cocke (Kansas) Juerg Osterwalder (University of Zuerich) Gianluca Gregori (Cambridge, UK) Metin Tolan (University of Dortmund) Chi-Chang Kao (BNL) Kyoshi Ueda (Sendai) Steve Kevan (Oregon) Edgar Weckert (DESY) LCLS Proposal Review Panel (PRP) For the 1st meeting dealing mainly with proposals for AMO experiments two guests with voting rights were invited: Chris Greene (JILA) Jon Marangos (Imperial College London) Two representatives of LCLS management without voting rights: Jerry Hastings Jochen Schneider Beamtime allocation in early operation phase of LCLS

9. Early operation phase of LCLS • Goals: • achieve FEL performance baseline goals as soon as possible • commission the first experiments • produce high-impact early science • achieve a rapid and orderly transition to steady state operation and a general user program • Involvement of Instrument Teams: • All access will be through the LCLS proposal review process and priority will always be given to the highest-rated proposals. • Only in cases of equal ranking, proposals from the Instrument Teams will be given priority. • This way the Instrument Teams can be given up to 50% of the beam time for photon science experiments during the instrument start-up phase, in general not more than 1000 hours. • Science driven commissioning: • Commissioning with beam will start with experiments of high scientific impact but technically not too demanding. • In the next step the goal is to do high impact experiments which are technically more demanding.

10. Thank you Thanks are due to J. Galayda, J. Hastings and J. Arthur