JWST Dual Anonymous Peer Review
This page describes the Dual Anonymous Peer Review (DAPR) policies and gives examples of common DAPR violations and suggestions for bringing them into compliance.
On this page
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.
Making your proposal compliant with DAPR
Proposals must be anonymized in accordance with the policies below. Compliance with this policy is mandatory. It takes some effort by authors to anonymize their PDF submissions. As the guidelines show, grammar and structure are expected to be different than in non-anonymized publications. Some examples of re-worked text can be found on Example text for anonymous proposing and other examples are given below. Take sufficient time to prepare the manuscript, especially if you are not used to preparing anonymized text in this manner.
Proposals received with violations will be subject to disqualification before the review-panel stage. Proposals with very minor infringements or where phrasing is ambiguous 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.
Provided here are guidelines and examples 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 to ensure that the PDF attachment is anonymized before it is uploaded to APT.
Below we provide guidance on common DAPR violations. These lists are not exhaustive.
Team and team member information
The goal of DAPR is to remove the focus from the proposing team to instead focus on the merit of the proposed science. Therefore, including any information about the team in the PDF attachment or APT abstract is grounds for disqualification, even if it is done in an anonymous fashion. Such information may be included in the Team Expertise section of APT, if desired.
- Do not include author names or affiliations anywhere in the PDF attachment or in the title or abstract portions of the APT Proposal Information form. 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).
- Do not include links to personal webpages.
- Do not include acknowledgements or the source of any grant funding.
- Do not reference the PI, co-PIs, or co-Is, even anonymously.
- Do not reference team's composition or team members' areas of expertise or career stages, even anonymously. This includes references to any work to be done by a student or postdoc in any part of the PDF attachment. This is especially relevant for proposals requiring "Analysis Plans" – proposers should outline the work, not the team members who will do the work.
- Do not mention or imply membership in a specific collaboration. This may be permissible for very large collaborations, but is not advised and may constitute grounds for disqualification.
- Do not include a "Team Expertise" or "Management Plan" section in any portion of the PDF attachment.
Some examples of non-compliant text and rewrites to bring them into compliance are given below. This is not an exhaustive list of possible DAPR violations.
| Non-compliant text | Compliant rewriting |
|---|---|
| "This project will be part of a student's PhD thesis supervised by the PI." | (remove entirely) |
| "We have access to a departmental supercomputer to undertake this analysis." | "The necessary computing resources are readily available." |
| "The PI will lead the project, aided by co-Is with expertise in X." | (remove entirely) |
| "We have assembled an international team with expertise in X..." | (remove entirely) |
| "As members of the X Collaboration, we have access to..." | "We have access to ... through prearranged agreement with the X Collaboration." |
| "We will publish our code to GitHub1. ... 1www.github.com/jdoe/code_name " | "We will make our code publicly available (e.g., on GitHub)." |
| "There are no ground-based facilities available to [COUNTRY]-based astronomers that can take these observations" | "These observations cannot be taken with ground-based facilities because [include scientific justification here]." |
Recycling published materials
Proposals may not include substantial verbatim extracts from previously published materials, including white papers, accepted proposals, or conference abstracts, in any part of the PDF attachment or APT Proposal Information form (e.g., abstract or title). Such inclusions are contrary to DAPR 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 reproduce 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, as these remain confidential.
Referencing past work
Referencing is an essential part of demonstrating knowledge of the field and progress. 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.
- In general, only use the first person possessive when talking about future work to be carried out as part of the proposal. Otherwise, use third person neutral wording.
- Do not claim or imply ownership of published work, including work citable by a DOI.
- Do not refer to previous or on-going campaigns with JWST or other observatories in an identifying fashion. While citing any previous (publicly-available) proposals or datasets, only include the program IDs or their equivalents, but not the PI name.
You can use any format for references, including using numbers for citations.
Some examples of non-compliant text and rewrites to bring them into compliance are given below. This is not an exhaustive list of possible DAPR violations.
| Non-compliant text | Compliant rewriting |
|---|---|
| "As we showed in Doe et al. (2025)..." | "As Doe et al. (2025) showed..." |
| "Our previous analysis has revealed ... [1]. ... [1] Doe et al. 2025..." | "Previous analysis has revealed ... [1]. |
| "We will continue development on the X codebase." | "Contributions from this program will be incorporated into the X codebase by prearranged agreement." |
| "In our past JWST observations of this target..." | "Past JWST observations of this target..." |
"We have complementary data from our Cycle 10 ALMA program (#####)." | "Complementary ALMA data exist for this target (#####)." |
"Our recently-approved HST Cycle 34 program will..." | "Complementary data from HST will... (priv. comm.)" |
"Archival data from Chandra (PI J. Doe, #####) will..." | "Archival data from Chandra (#####) will..." |
Referencing results that are not publicly available
It may be important to cite reference results that are part of papers in preparation or that have been submitted but are not yet publicly available (i.e., on the arXiv) by the proposal deadline. Please include those references if they are germane to the proposed science, but without claiming ownership. Proposers can 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" section of the APT Proposal Information form).
- Do not include author names in references to submitted papers that are not publicly available. If the paper is on the arXiv, you can cite it as any other published paper, but without claiming or implying ownership.
- Do not include author names in references to publications in preparation.
- For other information that was communicated privately, you may include the name of the person who communicated that information, though this is not required.
Some examples of non-compliant text and rewrites to bring them into compliance are given below. This is not an exhaustive list of possible DAPR violations.
| Non-compliant text | Compliant rewriting |
|---|---|
| "Figure 1 from Doe et al. (in prep.)..." | "Figure 1 (in prep.)..." or "Figure 1 (in prep., priv. comm.)..." |
| "This galaxy was found to be ... [1]. ... [ 1] Doe et al. 2026 submitted" | "This galaxy was found to be... (priv. comm.)" |
| "From our recent analysis shown in Figure 1... [1]. ... [1] Doe et al. 2026, arXiv:#####" | "As shown in Figure 1... [1]. ... [1] Doe et al. 2026, arXiv:#####" |
| "Recent JWST observations imply... (Doe et al. in prep.)" or "Recent JWST observations imply... (J. Doe, in prep.)" | "Recent JWST observations imply... (priv. comm.)" |
It is possible that a reviewer may recognize a non-public result that was presented during a conference, a talk, etc. As long as the proposers have cited those results in accordance with these DAPR guidelines, the proposal will be compliant. The reviewer will be instructed to either ignore that information in their review or, if they cannot ignore it or feel they are now conflicted on the proposal, the proposal will be re-assigned to another reviewer for evaluation.
A note about results published after the deadline but before the TAC meets
In some cases, a team's results are not public at the time of submission (September 30, 2026 by 8:00 pm US Eastern Time) but become publicly available by the time the TAC meets (February 1–11, 2027). For example, a proposal may be submitted with a figure from a paper in preparation and correctly referenced as "in prep." in the proposal. However, if that paper is published before the TAC meets, a reviewer could see that paper, note that the figures are the same, and deduce that the authors of that paper are the proposal team. Reviewers are instructed not to try to guess the proposing teams, and this rule applies to this scenario. Reviewers are instructed to ignore such information during their review. If they find that they cannot ignore it, or if they feel that they are now conflicted on the proposal, the proposal will be re-assigned to another reviewer for evaluation.
As a corollary to this scenario, proposers do not gain anything by trying to strategically time when papers are made publicly available between the proposal deadline and TAC meeting. As noted above, reviewers are instructed to ignore anything they think they may know about the proposing team. Moreover, reviewers are instructed to accept results cited as "in prep." or "priv. comm.", so there is no advantage for proposers to rush to make a paper publicly available after the deadline but before the TAC meets. Proposing teams should make their results publicly available when it is sensible to do so, without regards to the JWST Cycle 6 timeline.
There may be work from other teams relevant to the proposal that is published after the proposal deadline but before the TAC meets. Reviewers are instructed not to penalize proposals which do not cite or account for such results.
Referencing proprietary data or software
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," "from private consultation," or "by prearranged agreement" when referring to such potentially revealing data or facility access. Reviewers are instructed to accept such statements without requiring more justification in the proposal text (although that can be included in the "Team Expertise" section of the APT Proposal Information form).
- Do not refer to named resources or facilities available, such as computer or observatory access.
- Take caution when mentioning data or results from programs that are still within their exclusive access period. Mentions of these without i.e., "private communication" strongly implies that the proposal team is the same as previous program. As a reminder, data for archival proposals must be publicly available on MAST (i.e., no longer in its exclusive access period) by the start of Cycle 6.
Some examples of non-compliant text and rewrites to bring them into compliance are given below. This is not an exhaustive list of possible DAPR violations.
| Non-compliant text | Compliant rewriting |
|---|---|
| "We have access to time on the [not open-skies] X telescope, to complement this analysis." | "This analysis will be complemented by data from the X telescope (priv. comm.)" or "By prearranged agreement, this analysis will be complemented by data from the X telescope." |
| "We will run our simulations on the supercomputer at X University." or "We will run our simulations on the X supercomputing cluster." | "We have access to the necessary computational resources to run our simulations." |
| "JWST data on this object taken in Cycle 5 [still in its exclusive access period] show..." | "JWST data on this object show... (priv. comm.)" |
| "We will analyze our data using the [not-public] X pipeline..." | "We will analyze our data using the X pipeline, to which we have access by prearranged agreement." |
| "Laboratory results from the X Lab indicate..." | "Laboratory results indicate... (priv. comm.)" |
Other scenarios
When using sentences with "we" that refer to the community at-large and include a citation, proposers should take care that they cannot be misunderstood as the proposing team. This ambiguity could lead to a DAPR violation.
| Ambiguous text | What is unclear | Compliant rewriting |
|---|---|---|
| "With JWST, we have uncovered a new class of objects called Little Red Dots (Doe et al. 2023). | It is unclear if "we" refers to "the community at-large" or "Doe et al. 2023," that latter of which strongly implies the team is Doe et al. and would be a DAPR violation. | "JWST has led to the discovery of a new class of objects called Little Red Dots (Doe et al. 2023)." |
| “We showed that this galaxy is at z=10 using the SuperCool galaxy modeling code [9].” | It is unclear if [9] is citing the SuperCool galaxy modeling code or refers to “we showed,” the latter of which would be a DAPR violation. | "Using the SuperCool galaxy modeling code [9], we find that this is a z=10 galaxy." |
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
For more information about the Proposal Review Process, please see JWST How Your Proposal is Evaluated and the documentation for reviewers at JWST Peer Review Information. The sections below describe the portions of the review relevant to DAPR.
What happens if my proposal is found to violate DAPR policies?
DAPR policy violations may be found at any time by members of SPD or by a reviewer who brings the issue to SPD's attention.
As with any policy violation, (non-conflicted) members of SPD will investigate the potential DAPR policy violation, following the procedure described in JWST Key Policies. Feedback will be provided to proposers regarding any violations resulting in a warning or disqualification when the Cycle 6 selections are announced.
What the TAC does not see
While the completed APT proposal form necessarily contains information about the proposers, the following sections are omitted from the version of the proposal given to reviewers and in the online proposal review software:
- Investigators
The anonymous review does not mean proposals will be accepted from anonymous sources; proposers must enter the names and affiliations of all investigators into APT. This section is removed in its entirety during the review process. Only after the proposal ranking is finalized during the Discussion Panel or Executive Committee meeting are the investigator names and affiliations revealed to the reviewers. More information about this process can be found on JWST How Your Proposal is Evaluated. - Team Expertise
As described in JWST Filling Out the APT Proposal Form, this section provides a brief description of the expertise, background, and roles of key team members, as they relate to the science proposed.
This section is removed in its entirety during the review process. Only after the proposal ranking is finalized during the Discussion Panel or Executive Committee meeting is this revealed to the reviewers. More information about this process can be found on JWST How Your Proposal is Evaluated. - Proposal Description
This section should provide an overview of the proposed observations for reference by the program coordinators and instrument scientists, as described in JWST Filling Out the APT Proposal Form.
This section is removed in its entirety during the review process and is not seen by the TAC.
All other portions of the APT form are passed along to the TAC as entered. Proposers are strongly encouraged to view the PDF output of the APT form, as described in the JWST APT documentation.
Instructions given to reviewers
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. The guidelines given to reviewers can be found in the JWST Peer Review Information. More information about the proposal review process can be found in the JWST How Your Proposal is Evaluated.
Reviewers are instructed to not spend time attempting to identify the team or the principal investigator. A reviewer's grading should be centered on the main review criteria.
Reviewers are forbidden from uploading proposal content or review materials to GAI tools, since this violates the confidentiality of the review process.
During the TAC meetings
During the Discussion Panel and the Executive Committee meetings, proposals will be discussed and ranked in order of scientific merit. The discussion should focus on the scientific merit of the proposal. All panels 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. Chairs and Panel Support Scientist (PSS) are instructed to refocus or terminate discussion if it moves to PI or team.
The "Team Expertise" is not a consideration until after rankings occur and are finalized. At this stage, only the most extreme circumstances of a team being clearly unqualified to undertake the work proposed are cause for a proposal to be flagged by majority vote of the panel. If a proposal is downgraded after the team expertise review, other lower ranked proposals may not be upgraded to take its place. 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 Policy Division (SPD), JWST Mission Office, and operations/scheduling staff. Finally, any proposals that are downgraded will have the reasons for downgrade passed on to the proposers.
Next: JWST Getting Started on Your Proposal