The document below describes the processes followed to check for compliance and to identify and adjudicate duplications during the JWST peer review process. During different stages of the proposal ingest and review process, all submitted proposals are checked for multiple in-cycle submissions, and for Observation Duplications and Science Duplications. 

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 or science duplications, described below. 

Duplication policy

There are two flavors of duplications: Observation Duplications and Science Duplications.

Observation Duplications 

See JWST Duplicate Observations Policy for details on the policy. Duplications are observations of the same target or field using the same instrument, same mode, same optical elements and with an exposure time within a factor of four. The primary goal of the JWST Duplicate Observations Policy is to maximize telescope efficiency by eliminating unnecessary observations. In general, duplications are only allowed if there is a clear scientific justification. Exceptions include partial duplications, impacting a subset of the observing program and where removing the observation from one or other program could harm the science. This could be case, for example, when the fields of view overlap by < 50%; in the case of observations of a target using multiple filters where most are unique; or in the case of NIRSpec MOS observations where <30% are source duplications. If there are no mitigating circumstances, one observation/visit/target will be disallowed. Previous cycle observations have priority. In-cycle duplications are adjudicated on a case by case basis, with the prime aim to minimize the overall science impact, taking into account data access and depth/integration times.  The proposing teams will not be asked to share data before it becomes publicly available. 

Science Duplications 

Science duplications can take a number of different forms, but are generally considered duplications when the scientific outcomes of different programs are very similar, and could overlap or be redundant. For example, if two programs wish to do the same science with the same target, even if the observations requested are not direct duplications, or if two programs propose to do the same science on different but very similar targets. There is no policy prohibiting Science Duplications but in some cases the TAC may consider them an inefficient use of JWST time, leading to the rejection of one of the proposals. 

Identification of Observation Duplications

Principal Investigators are required to identify and justify any duplications with previous cycle programs. Instructions to proposers can be found in JWST Observation Duplication Checking  and Identifying Potential JWST Duplicate Observation. The science justification for the duplication should be included in the proposal in the appropriate section. If it is not, the duplicate observations will be disallowed. 

In-cycle duplications are dealt with differently because proposers cannot identify them before submission.  Most duplications will be identified by and resolved by the TAC during the proposal selection process but in some cases they are identified post-TAC by the Science Policies Group (SPG) or when STScI performs program verification and duplication checking of all accepted programs. Community members also have the option to flag potential duplications via a duplication report to the Telescope Time Review Board (TTRB). The final decision on duplications rests with the STScI Director who is the Allocating Official for JWST. 

Duplication Flagging and Adjudication During the Review Process 

Before the Discussion Panels Meetings

Prior to the Discussion panel meetings, STScI will run duplication checking software to search for Observation Duplications between the Very Small proposals likely to be recommended to the Director by the External panels and the Small and Medium proposals that will be discussed in the Discussion panels corresponding to that same Scientific Category. This information is made available to the corresponding Chairs. The Chairs will also receive the titles and the abstracts of the recommended External panel proposals to be able to identify Science Duplications.  

During the Discussion Panel Meetings

Chair Tag-ups (formerly called Chair Breakfasts) will provide a forum for Executive Committee members chairing Discussion panels corresponding to the same Scientific Category (a.k.a. mirror panels) to compare the highly ranked Small and Medium proposals from their panels. This provides an opportunity to identify any Science Duplications in the mirror Discussion panels. Science and Observation Duplications with the External panels and among the mirror Discussion panels are adjudicated by the Discussion panel Chairs, with feedback from the Discussion panels, when required. This is done after the ranking of the Discussion panels is locked. 

The Executive Committee Meeting

Prior to the EC Meeting, STScI will run duplication checking software to search for observation duplications among the Small and Medium proposals that are likely to be accepted based on the Discussion panels recommendations and the Very Small proposals recommended by the External panels .  At the EC meeting, chairs will summarize highly ranked Medium proposals, detailing the high-level science questions that will be addressed. During the ranking phase of the EC proposals, the Chairs and Vice-Chairs will discuss any Science Duplications of top-ranked EC proposals with proposals in their respective Discussion panels. These are typically Medium proposals, whose scope may reach that of some EC proposals. The EC will make a recommendation if a genuine Science Duplication exists. The outcome could be a downgrade of an EC proposal if the recommended Discussion panel proposal achieves identical science. Vice versa, the EC may find that a Large/Treasury proposal supersedes a recommended Discussion panel proposal. In this case, the ranking of the EC proposal may stay the same. The EC should not rerank the proposals in the affected Discussion panel but inform the Director of the Science Duplication with the Discussion panel proposal.

After the TAC has Disbanded

The JWST SPG may reach out to the Chairs of the Discussion panels for assistance adjudicating late breaking duplications. 

Final Decision 

The STScI Director is the Allocating Official for JWST so ultimately all duplications are adjudicated by Director, based on TAC recommendations. 

Next: Tips for a Smooth Review