Galactic/Extragalactic Panel Meetings
The preliminary grades are used to identify the top proposals for further discussion during the review meeting; lower-ranked proposals are marked for triage. Several days in advance of the meeting, panelists are informed which proposals will be discussed and which have been triaged. Panelists have the option of raising a limited number of triaged proposals for discussion and re-grading if they feel there are compelling reasons; panelists may not raise a proposal where they have a conflict. Panelists should inform the Chair and PSS of these proposals as soon as possible so as to give other panelists time to review the proposals ahead of the meeting.
Each proposal is assigned a Primary and Secondary reviewer who are responsible for leading the discussion of the proposal in the review meeting. Panelists should ensure that they have read all proposals flagged for discussion ahead of the meeting, including those they did not read for preliminary grading.
During the review meeting, proposals will be discussed and re-graded in turn. The Primary will start the discussion, the Secondary will comment next, and then each (unconflicted) panelist will be given the opportunity to comment in turn before the floor is opened for general discussion. After the discussion, each proposal will be graded, with every unconflicted panel member voting on each proposal. Guidance for grading proposals is given here.
Once all proposals have been graded, the ranked list will be compiled by the PSS for review. Each panel has a separate resource allocation for small and medium proposals. The cutoff in the ranking is set by the allocation to small proposals; medium and archival proposals generally need to lie above that cutoff to be considered for acceptance. Panels can re-rank proposals to take account of factors such as programmatic balance.
Once the ranked list is finalized, panels will be given the opportunity to review the team expertise submissions, but only for the proposals recommended for implementation. Panelists should raise specific proposals for discussion. If there is consensus that there are clear, compelling deficiencies in the expertise required to achieve the science goals, the panel should document those for the Director's consideration. Proposals can only be eliminated; removal will not elevate a proposal below the allocation line.
A subset of the Large, Treasury and Legacy proposals will be assigned to each panel. Panelists do not grade those proposals. However, they should prepare to discuss those proposals and identify strengths and weaknesses to help the Chair when those proposals are graded by the Merging TAC.
Every proposal, including triaged proposals, must receive feedback comments. Those comments should reflect the primary selection criteria. The Primary and Secondary reviewers are responsible for collating those comments; primary and secondary reviewers should enter their preliminary comments into the reviewer tool in advance of the panel meeting. There will be an opportunity to modify and adjust those comments during and after the meeting, but only limited time is available. Comments are sent verbatim and must be couched in an appropriately respectful manner.