Dual Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR) conceals the identities of the reviewers and the proposing team, focusing the review on the scientific merit of the proposal. 

STScI has a responsibility to simultaneously ensure that the community has equal opportunity for the use of JWST and that the best science is being done with the finite amount of observing time available. The Institute places a high value on the equity and integrity of the proposal review process. The focus of the TAC review is to recommend the best science. The identity of the proposing team should not be a consideration in making this judgement. 

The goal of dual anonymous peer review is to enable each reviewer to focus on the science, not the proposing team. A summary of the dual anonymous process, guidelines, and a description of how the review process works is given below.

The Dual Anonymous Peer Review process

Proposers submit their proposals through APT. All sections of the PDF attachment that is uploaded to APT must be anonymized following the guidelines below. 

All reviewers will conduct their review without seeing any of the names associated with the proposal and without seeing the information in the "Team Expertise and Background" section of the APT Proposal Information form. 

Discussion panels (including the ECs) will be assigned a Panel Support Scientist (PSS); one key role of the PSS is to ensure that discussions remain focused on the scientific merit of the proposal and do not discuss the proposing teams. Discussion panels will discuss the proposals and generate a final ranked list of proposals that are recommended for selection. Once the ranked list is set, the panels will be given access to the "Team Expertise and Background" information associated with each proposal recommended for implementation. At this point, proposals may only be flagged for downgrade, where a downgrade would result in a non-selection of the proposal.

If a proposal is downgraded after the team expertise review, other lower ranked proposals may not be upgraded to take its place. This flag, assigned by majority vote of the panel, should only be used in the most extreme circumstances of a team being clearly unqualified to undertake the work proposed. Should a proposal be suggested for downgrade, the Panel Chair will participate in the discussion about why this recommendation is necessary. A detailed description of the reason for the flag must be given. This flag will then be passed on to the STScI Director, along with the proposal's initial ranking, and a statement by the panel on the rationale for flagging the proposal. The Director will make the final decision, in consultation with appropriate personnel from STScI, including the Science Policies Division (SPD), JWST Mission Office, ESA Office, and operations/scheduling staff. Finally, any proposals that are downgraded will have the reasons for downgrade passed on to the proposers. The same process will be applied to Large proposals by the Executive Committee.

For more information about the Proposal Review Process, please see JWST Proposal Selection Procedures.

Guidelines for the PDF attachment

Provided here are guidelines to assist proposers in preparing their proposals, specifically their PDF attachments, to help conceal the identities of the proposers and to ensure a proposal evaluation process that focuses on scientific merit. 

While APT will obscure the proposing teams' identities in cover materials (see below), it will not change or alter information contained in the PDF attachment. Thus, it is necessary for proposers to take additional steps to further anonymize their PDF attachment before it is uploaded to APT. Below are some guidelines to accomplish this:

• Do not include author names or affiliations anywhere in the PDF attachment. This includes, but is not limited to, page headers, footers, diagrams, figures, or watermarks. This does not include references to past work, which should be included whenever relevant (see below).
  
  
• Referencing is an essential part of demonstrating knowledge of the field and progress. You can use any format for references, including using numbers for citations. When citing references within the proposal, use third person neutral wording. This especially applies to self-referencing. For example, replace phrases like “as we have shown in our previous work (Doe et al. 2010)” with “as Doe et al. (2010) showed.” Do not refer to previous campaigns using JWST or other observatories in an identifying fashion. For instance, rather than write "we observed another cluster, similar to the one we are proposing under JWST program #XXXXX," instead write "JWST program #XXXXX has observed this target in the past." 
  
  
• We encourage references to published work, including work citable by a DOI, but do not claim ownership. In general, only use the first person possessive when talking about future work by the proposal team to be carried out as part of the proposal; however, do not include information about the proposal team members themselves.
  
  
• Anonymizing a proposal is not an excuse to omit relevant scientific information. Proposers should describe the past work in the field, and how this proposal will improve, build-upon, or complete that past work. Many successful proposals include a discussion of stated sample goals or statistical completeness and how the proposed work fits into this broader context. Similarly, proposals may also discuss the uniqueness of the sample and goals in comparison to similar work.
  
  
• It may be important to cite exclusive access datasets, ancillary data from private facilities, or non-public software that may reveal (or strongly imply) the investigators of the proposal. Please include those references if they are germane to the proposed science, but without claiming ownership. We suggest proposers use language like "obtained in private communication" or "from private consultation" when referring to such potentially revealing data or facility access. Proposers can also cite the work as "in preparation" or "private communication, in preparation", but must not include any author names in such citations, as this would be identifying of the team. Reviewers are instructed to accept such statements without requiring more justification in the proposal text (although that can be included in the "Team Expertise and Background" section of the APT Proposal Information form).
  
  
• Do not include acknowledgements or the source of any grant funding. 
  
  
• The goal of dual anonymous peer review is to remove the focus of the proposal from the proposing team and place it on the proposed science. Thus, discussions of the team's experience or composition should not be included, and may be cause for disqualification, even if done so in an anonymous fashion. This is especially relevant for proposals requiring "Analysis Plans" – they should outline the work, not the team members who will do the work. (This includes references to any work to be done by a student or postdoc in any part of the PDF attachment.)

Non-compliance with any of the above guidelines may be grounds for the proposal to be disqualified without review.

It takes effort by authors to anonymize their PDF attachments. Some examples of re-worked text can be found in Example text for anonymous proposing. Please take sufficient time to prepare the PDF attachment to comply with the DAPR guidelines. 

Team Expertise and Background section

As part of the proposal submission, proposers should complete the "Team Expertise and Background" section of the APT Proposal Information form. This section should provide a brief description of the expertise, background, and roles of key team members, as they relate to the science proposed. This section should be limited in length; for most proposals, a paragraph or two will suffice. For proposals with a large number of Co-Investigators, it is not necessary to report on the qualifications of every team member, nor is it necessary to provide a bio of all team members. If proposers wish, they can identify the PI in this section (the PI will not be denoted by default in the proposal document). An example is provided in the Proposer Guidelines in Anonymous Reviews. 

Please note: the text box will support ASCII text. Special text markup and LaTex are not supported.

The anonymous review does not mean proposals will be accepted from anonymous sources. As with previous cycles, proposers must enter the names and affiliations of all investigators into APT. APT will not include names or affiliations in the versions generated for the reviewers, nor will it include the "Team Expertise and Background" section. As described above in the The Dual Anonymous Peer Review process, the review panels will be given access to the "Team Expertise and Background" information associated with each proposal recommended for implementation after the proposal rankings are set.

Recycling published materials

Proposals may not include substantial verbatim extracts from previously published materials, including white papers or accepted proposals, in any part of the PDF attachment or APT Proposal Information form (e.g., abstract or title). Such inclusions are contrary to dual anonymous review since the re-use implicitly identifies the authors of the proposal. As specific examples,

• Proposers may not submit a new proposal that recycles all or most of the abstract of an accepted proposal. While reviewers are instructed to avoid trying to deduce the identity of proposers, they are expected to determine the scientific context for a given proposal, including relevant past work. Indeed, the new proposal would be expected to cite the previous work to establish why new observations are required. Recycling the abstract and/or the title identifies the proposal team.
• Proposers may not re-produce verbatim large sections of published papers, including white papers. Common practice requires that any such extracts should be referenced; re-use implies intellectual ownership of that material, and therefore identifies the proposal team.

Proposers may include short extracts or figures from published materials following the standard protocols of enclosing the extract in quotes and providing the appropriate citation. Re-use of text from confidential sections of a proposal is allowable, as is resubmission of rejected proposals.

Proposals that violate these requirements will be subject to disqualification.

Compliance

Proposals must be anonymized in accordance with the guidelines above. Compliance with this policy is mandatory. Proposals received with violations will be subject to disqualification before the review-panel stage. Proposals with very minor infringements may be allowed to proceed under exceptional circumstances, but will receive a warning that will be noted for submissions in future cycles. Feedback will be provided to proposers regarding any violations.

A possible concern that may arise is the following: "I've made every effort to anonymize my proposal, have followed all the guidelines, changed all my references to third-person, but I fear that my work is so specialized (or my analysis methods so unique) that panelists who know me will still be able to figure out who I am. Will my proposal be disqualified?" So long as the guidelines above are followed, the answer is NO, such a proposal will not be considered to be in violation. It is not necessary to "water down" or obscure your science, your methods, or your tools; it is simply your responsibility to write about them in the third-person, in a way that does not intentionally identify yourself. 

How your anonymous proposal is reviewed

Proposers need to write a proposal that concentrates on the science and is properly anonymous in regard to the Proposal Team, but the reviewers also have responsibilities to follow the dual-anonymous process. The primary objective of these reviews is to select the best science, not (necessarily) the most well-known science teams. Panels, facilitated by Panel Chairs, rank proposals in order of scientific merit and recommend the resources that should be allocated to each. The experience of the team with JWST or otherwise is not a consideration until after rankings occur. Reviewers are instructed to not spend time attempting to identify the team or the principal investigator. A reviewer's preliminary grading should be centered on the main review criteria. The discussion should focus on the scientific merit of the proposal. Chairs and Panel Support Scientist (PSS) are instructed to refocus or terminate discussion when it moves to PI or team. The guidelines given to reviewers can be found in the Dual Anonymous Proposals Guide for Reviewers - Cycle 4. More information about the Proposal Review Process can be found in the JWST Proposal Selection Procedures.

Next: JWST Proposal Submission Policies