JWST Key Policies

This page summarizes the key JWST policies with which proposers should be familiar and by which they must abide.

On this page

See also:  JWST Dual Anonymous Peer Review, JWST General Science Policies

This is not an exhaustive list of policies pertaining to JWST proposals and programs.
Proposers should be familiar with the information in JWST General Science Policies.

Procedural policies

Deadline

The deadline for Cycle 6 proposal submission is September 30, 2026 by 8:00 pm US Eastern Time. The APT portal will close promptly at that time. Late proposals will not be considered, unless an extension has been granted (see below).

Please submit well before the deadline whenever possible, to avoid possible last-minute hardware or overloading problems, or network delays/outages. Proposals can be resubmitted multiple times; the latest version submitted before the deadline will be the version that is evaluated.

In exceptional cases where there are unforeseen and extenuating circumstances beyond a proposer's control, proposers may request a moderate extension to the deadline via the JWST Help Desk. Extensions must be requested before the deadline with appropriate justification. Late requests for extensions will not be considered.

Questions about policies and technical issues should be addressed to the JWST Help Desk well before the deadline. While we attempt to answer all questions as rapidly as possible, we cannot guarantee a speedy response in the last week before the deadline.

Who may submit proposals

Investigators of any nationality or affiliation may submit and be included on JWST proposals. Institutional endorsement is not required for proposal submission. All proposals are reviewed without regard to the nationalities or affiliations of the investigators.

Principal investigator and co-investigators

Each proposal must have a Principal Investigator (PI), who is responsible for the scientific leadership of the project. A Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) option is also available, allowing two or more proposers to share the scientific responsibility of the project. Co-PIs can be identified with appropriate justification specifying the leadership roles and responsibilities in the "Team Expertise" section of APT. However, identifying the PI and Co-PIs in the "Team Expertise" section is optional (the PI and co-PIs will not be denoted by default in the proposal document).

Any other individuals who are actively involved in the proposal should be listed as Co-Investigators (Co-Is). The proposal itself must be submitted through APT, by either the PI or any Co-I. 

Proposals by non-U.S. PIs that have one or more U.S. Co-Is must designate one of the U.S. Co-Is as the Administrative PI. Some U.S. PIs, including students and postdoctoral fellows, may also need to designate an Administrative PI. This person will have overall oversight and responsibility for any budget submissions by the U.S. Co-Is. All proposals have the option of designating a Contact Co-I, who will serve as the contact person for that proposal. However, the Administrative PI remains responsible for oversight of the award, the proper conduct of research, the appropriate use of funds (regardless of whether or not the Administrative PI received support through the award), and the administrative requirements such as the submission of progress reports.

NASA is prohibited from participating, collaborating, or coordinating bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company at the prime recipient level or at any sub-recipient level. JWST grant funding cannot be used for any of the above activities. Questions pertaining to this prohibition are addressed in the FAQ for NASA ROSES, which is subject to the same prohibitions.

ESA and CSA scientists

An agreement between NASA and ESA states that a minimum of 15% of JWST observing time (on average over the lifetime of the JWST project) will be allocated to scientists from institutions in ESA member states. Similarly, an agreement between NASA and CSA states that a minimum of 5% of JWST observing time (on average over the lifetime of the JWST project) will be allocated to scientists from Canadian institutions. These requirements are being satisfied via the normal selection process, as has been the case for the Hubble Space Telescope. 

How proposals are submitted

Cycle 6 Proposals must be submitted electronically. APT (Astronomer's Proposal Tool) is an installed application for specification and submission of JWST proposals. All proposals must be submitted through APT. The version of the Astronomer's Proposal Tool (APT) required for proposal submission is 2026.3.2 or higher. Please refer to JWST Filling Out the APT Proposal Form for more information.

A proposal consists of two parts:

Both are submitted to STScI directly from within APT. 

Proposals for which the PDF attachment does not match the information entered into the APT Proposal Information form and/or are the same as uploaded for another proposal will be disqualified from the review. Proposers are advised to carefully check that they have uploaded the correct PDF attachment into APT.

Intellectual integrity

By submitting a proposal in response to this Call for Proposals, all proposers accept responsibility for the intellectual merit and content of all proposal materials.

All investigators should be familiar with the policy around the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI).

Institutional endorsement

STScI does not require the signature of an Authorizing Official (AO) on JWST Proposals. However, some institutions do require AO approval of all submitted proposals. It is the responsibility of each PI to follow all applicable institutional policies concerning the submission of proposals.

Proposal confidentiality 

Proposals submitted to STScI will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by the review process. For accepted proposals, the following information will become publicly accessible on the JWST Approved Programs and Proposal Information webpages: names of PI, Co-PIs, and Co-Is, project titles, abstracts, observing description, special scheduling requirements, and details of all targets and exposures. This is the same information contained in the Operational PDF generated by APT. The APT files of approved proposals become publicly accessible in their entirety. The PDF attachments of accepted proposals remain confidential.

Data rights and Exclusive Access Periods

Depending on the Proposal Category (see JWST Proposal Types and Categories), observers may have exclusive access to their science data during an Exclusive Access Period. For Very Small, Small, and Medium GO and Survey proposals, by default this period is 12 months following the date on which the data are archived (for programs with multiple visits, the exclusive access period ends 12 months after each visit). At the end of the exclusive access period, the data become publicly available without restriction through the MAST Archive. 

Submitters of Very Small, Small, and Medium GO and Survey proposals who wish to request a shorter exclusive access period of 3 or 6 months, or who are willing to waive their exclusive access rights altogether (i.e., 0 months), should specify the desired exclusive access period on the Proposal Information form in APT and in the Special Requirements section of the PDF attachment. Because of the potential benefit to the community, particularly in the case of Survey programs, proposers should give this serious consideration (see JWST How Your Proposal is Evaluated).

Data taken under the Large GO, Treasury GO, Calibration GO, JWST-Roman Science (JRS) Initiative, or HWO Precursor Science (HPS) Initiative program categories will by default have no Exclusive Access Period. Any request for non-zero Exclusive Access Periods for programs in these categories must be indicated in the APT Proposal Information form, justified in the Special Requirements section of the PDF attachment, and will be subject to review by the TAC. It is possible for a program to be approved, but for the request for a longer Exclusive Access Period to be denied.

Who may request funding

Subject to availability of funds from NASA, STScI will provide financial support to eligible U.S. investigators on approved JWST Cycle 6 programs. Budget proposals will be requested after Cycle 6 proposal selection to programs that qualify for funding. Budgets are not due at the Cycle 6 proposal deadline, but are required by the budget submission deadline, End-April 2027.

Canada-based and ESA member-state proposers should seek funding from their respective home institutions or national funding agencies. CSA and ESA employees at STScI are eligible for NASA JWST funding.

See JWST Grant Funding and Budget Submissions and the General Grant Provisions (GGP) for further funding information.


Proposal compliance policies

This is not necessarily an exhaustive list of compliance policies. Proposals which violate any of these or other policies will be subject to disqualification in the review process. 

Dual Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR)

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 examples, and a description of how the review process works is on JWST Dual Anonymous Peer Review.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI)

Proposers are not prohibited from the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools. However, following NASA policy, the proposal must acknowledge content that is not the creative product of the proposal team. Thus, any material contained in the proposal that is derived from GAI must be described and cited, e.g., the name of the program, version number, the date and time, and a short statement on how the GAI was used. This information must be included in the "References" section of the PDF attachment (and does not count against the page limits). Failure to disclose the use of GAI will result in disqualification.

Some uses of GAI tools are not acceptable, such as those resulting in hallucinated (i.e., non-existant) references to support the science case, and will result in the proposal being disqualified. Investigators are reminded that they accept responsibility for the intellectual integrity of all proposal materials. 

Proposers are reminded that using GAI tools will place that text in the public domain.

Reviewers are forbidden from uploading proposal content or review materials to GAI tools, since this violates the confidentiality of the review process.

Proposal PDF attachment requirements

The PDF attachment must:

Multiple in-cycle submissions

Before the proposals are distributed to the reviewers, STScI checks all submitted proposals for multiple in-cycle submissions across scientific categories and across size categories. By multiple in-cycle submissions we refer to proposals with the same or nearly the same team, science goals, and targets. STScI reserves the right to reject all such proposals as non-compliant in the case of egregious violations, as they negatively impact the fairness of the selection process and result in unnecessary burden for the reviewers. Note that we are not referring to observation duplications (described in JWST Duplicate Observations Policy), or science duplications (when the scientific outcomes of two programs are very similar, and could overlap or be redundant but the programs are clearly distinct). The latter two are addressed during the Discussion panels and Executive panel meetings as part of the proposal selection process.

Duplicate observations

Observations taken as part of the GO program cannot duplicate those specified by previously approved GO programs, Guaranteed Time Observations (GTOs), or Director's Discretionary Programs, including the Early Release Science programs, unless there is an appropriate scientific justification. Generally, an observation is considered a potential duplication if it is:

  • on the same astronomical target or field,
  • with the same instrument in the same mode,
  • with the same spectral resolution and spectral range, and
  • an on-target exposure time within a factor of 4

of the previously-scheduled observation.

Duplicate observations must be justified explicitly in the proposal. Proposers should refer to the JWST Duplication Policy for the complete description of the policy requirements and to the guidelines for Duplication Checking for Proposals. Potential duplications between proposals submitted in the same cycle will be identified by STScI but the proposals are evaluated independently, regardless of the duplication. This information is only provided to the TAC in the case duplicate proposals are independently recommended, so the TAC can make a recommendation for adjudication.

How proposal compliance policy violations are handled

Possible proposal compliance violations may be raised by members of SPD or reviewers at any point after a proposal is submitted. SPD uses a combination of automated and manual checks to ensure proposals are compliant. Proposals which are flagged as potentially non-compliant are circulated to all (non-conflicted) SPD members for internal discussion. If a proposal is found to be non-compliant (based on a majority vote by SPD members), that proposal number, the policy/policies violated, and the offending text/attributes are logged and passed to the STScI Director's Office for the final decision on whether that proposal should be disqualified from the review.

If a proposal is disqualified, the proposers will receive a disqualification notice, including the policy/policies violated and the offending text/attributes, when the selection results are announced (Early to mid-March 2027). They will not receive any feedback from reviewers on their proposal.

Proposals with very minor policy violations may be issued a warning in exceptional cases. The proposal will continue to be reviewed, and the proposers will receive a warning notice, including the policy/policies violated and the offending text/attributes, when the selection results are announced (Early to mid-March 2027). PIs who have received warnings are tracked from cycle to cycle, and repeat offenses will likely result in disqualification.


Next: JWST Dual Anonymous Peer Review



Notable updates
Originally published