|
Review Login
Login to check your review status.
Lujan Center Review Process
Approximately four months before the start of each run cycle, a call for proposals is issued identifying the start and end of the run cycle and instrument availability. All proposals, including national security, are subject to external peer review by the Materials Program Advisory Committee (MPAC). The MPAC is broken into six subcommittees: Magnetism, Engineering Materials, Nanoscience and Condensed Matter Science, Earth Sciences, Soft Materials, Excitations in Materials. A seventh subcommittee, Defense Science, has membership drawn from the other subcommittees and provides input on the programmatic relevance of proposals designated as national security.
Proposals are evaluated on the basis of the written information provided by the proposer. The criteria for evaluation of proposals are generically similar for each subcommittee. A determination must be made of the scientific significance of the problem proposed and the likelihood of success. An additional consideration is the number of days requested, which is reviewed by each instrument scientist prior to submission to the MPAC. The rating system used by all subcommittees is as follows (one decimal point is accepted):
5.0 Excellent proposal. Experiment should be carried out with highest priority.
4.0 Very good proposal. Experiment should be carried out with high priority and receive beam time during the upcoming operating period.
3.0 Good proposal. Experiment should be carried out under normal conditions of demand for beam time.
2.0 Fair proposal. While scientific or programmatic merit is not exceptionally high, the experiment can receive beam time if it is available.
1.0 Poor proposal. Scientific or programmatic merit or experiment feasibility not convincingly documented. Beam time should not be allocated.
Two subcommittee members review each proposal and submit initial ratings and comments electronically before the committee meeting, which are then compiled and averaged before discussion during the one-and-one-half-day on-site MPAC meeting. The committees supply summary comments on each proposal in addition to those from the individual reviewers. Final ratings are then normalized across subcommittees. Proposals designated as national security are reviewed by the relevant materials subcommittee and also by the defense science subcommittee, which may award up to 0.5 point based on programmatic relevance. "National security" encompasses weapons research and homeland defense topics, including chem-bio threats, critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, and energy security. Typically fifteen to twenty percent of beam time is allocated to national security proposals and recognizes the provision of neutrons by the NNSA Defense Programs Office at no cost to Lujan users or BES. It should be noted, however, that most national security proposals are ranked very high by the MPAC using the same criteria applied to other user proposals. |
