This page describes the role and responsibilities of panel Chairs and Vice Chairs in the JWST Peer Review process.

See also: Guide for Chairs and Vice Chairs, Review Policies and Instructions, Discussion Panel Meetings, Executive Committee Meetings, Tips for a Smooth Review, Orientation Materials

Chairs and Vice Chairs should be familiar with the Review Policies and Instructions. 

During EC Preliminary Grading

Before the Discussion Panel Meeting

Set a schedule

Chairs should set a schedule for the meeting and communicate this to the panelists and PSS ahead of time. We recommend that Chairs schedule blocks of time for different activities (proposal discussions, writing of proposal feedback comments). Don’t forget to include breaks, and stick to them!

Additionally, Chairs should decide and communicate the order in which proposals will be discussed ahead of time so panelists can make sure they are prepared.

You are strongly encouraged to use an online service (such as Google Sheets) to share your schedule. This way panelists, At-Large members, PSSs, the TAC chair, STScI staff, and Observers can see what you plan to discuss and when, and ensures that everyone who needs it always has the most up-to-date version of your schedule. Ensure that the sharing permissions are such that anyone with the link can view the spreadsheet.

• An example spreadsheet with 3 schedule examples, and detailed breakdowns for tracking primaries/secondaries and conflicts: Draft Schedule for STScI TACs (link is to a Google Sheet)

As part of setting the schedule, choose a "Scribe" for each proposal from the non-conflicted panelists who are neither Primary nor Secondary Reviewer. The Scribe will take notes during the discussion to aid with comment writing.

During the Discussion Panel Meeting

The Discussion panels are managed by a panel Chair and a Vice Chair. Neither the panel Chair nor Vice Chair reviews, grades, or ranks Discussion proposals. 

Understanding, patience, and kindness

We have panelists spanning many time zones around the world. The meeting times have been truncated to account for this, but we do understand it may be very late or very early for some.

It is also likely that many panelists will be working from home, with partners, children, housemates, and pets around, possibly in small spaces. Be understanding about background noise and distractions. That said, we encourage panelists to mute when not speaking to minimize background noise.

Stick to the schedule

Try to stick to the pre-determined scheduled, as much as possible. Ensure any changes are reflected in the schedule as soon as possible; this is why it is strongly recommended to make a dynamic schedule document (i.e., in Google Sheets). 

When the panel takes a break, please arrange for a note to be projected on the screen with the time that the panel is expected to reconvene. Such a note is helpful for wandering Observers to understand the panel's schedule. It is also helpful to put a message in the panel's Slack channel stating when the panel will reconvene.

Make a plan for managing the discussions

Chairs should set a protocol for the order in which panelists will speak during each discussion and communicate this protocol at the start of the meeting.

Every proposal is assigned a Primary and Secondary reviewer. The Primary starts the discussion by briefly summarizing and reviewing the proposal, then the Secondary gives supplementary comments, and finally the discussion is opened up to all panelists.

Different panels can have very different dynamics, so the best approach for gathering additional comments can vary. We recommend that you pick one of these, and then pivot if the strategy doesn't work well for your panel.

Approach 1 – Calling on Panelists in Turn

In this approach, the Chair calls on each panelist in turn to explicitly invite their contributions. To ensure that panelists play an equal role in the discussion, and that no one always goes last, we propose that the Chair calls on panelists alphabetically (after the Primary and Secondary reviewers have spoken), starting from the Secondary reviewer. For example:

For example:
Cannon – 7
Herschel – 8
Leavitt (Secondary) – 2
Payne-Gaposchkin – 3
Roman – 4
Rubin – 5
Swope (Primary) – 1
Tinsley – 6

It can be helpful to remind panelists it's ok to say "nothing further to add" and that they don't have to repeat statements from other panelists if they agree with them.

If you adopt this approach, be mindful of the time. If discussions are running very long, or if panelists are repeating statements instead of adding new insights, then you may wish to switch to Approach 2.

Approach 2 – Asking for Additional Comments

Instead of calling on panelists individually, simply ask if anyone has anything to add and ask them to raise their hands using the raise hand feature in webex. You can track the order in which hands were raised by looking at the participant list in webex – raised hands are shown in order. The call on them in turn.

If you adopt this approach, be mindful of who is not raising their hand often. If there are one or two panelists who never contribute, or if the whole panel is reluctant to contribute, then you may want to switch to Approach 1.

Conflicts of interest

Any panelist who is conflicted on a proposal for any reason must leave the virtual meeting for the duration of the discussion of that proposal (both in the individual proposal discussion phase and the ranking phase if the conflicted proposal is being compared to another). The preferred solution is to add any conflicted panelists to a breakout room in Webex and then recall them to the main meeting once the discussion is over. An alternative solution is for any conflicted panelists to disconnect from the meeting entirely and rejoin once the discussion is over. It is not permissible to turn off audio and video but remain connected to the main meeting.

Ahead of the meeting, panelists should identify the best way to contact them to tell them that the discussion has ended and they can rejoin the meeting. Panelists should also be vigilant during that time and aware that they could be called back at any time. We have set up a Slack channel for each panel and strongly recommend using this, but other methods (email, text, WhatsApp) could be used instead if Slack does not prove to work well. Panelists should make sure that notifications are turned on and/or alert sounds are turned on, as appropriate, for the method they choose.

If the Chair is conflicted on a proposal, the Chair should leave the meeting and the Vice Chair will moderate the meeting. If the Chair and Vice Chair are both conflicted, they will appoint a panelist to handle the discussion of that proposal. If necessary, and At-Large member or the TAC Chair can be asked to deputize as Chair; typically SPD will verify that an At-Large member or the TAC Chair is available and the PSS will let them know when the proposal is next up for discussion so they can join the panel.

Gather feedback on a subset of EC proposals 

During the Discussion Panel meeting, the Chair and Vice Chair will have the opportunity to gather feedback from the panelists on a subset of EC proposals that have been assigned to them. Your EC manager may also help you coordinate with At-Large Members to participate in these conversations.

After the Discussion Panel Meeting

Proposal feedback comments

Panelists are required to provide proposal feedback comments for all proposals for which they are the Primary reviewer, in consultation with the Secondary reviewer – incorporating comments from the Secondary reviewer, the other panelists and from the discussions.

If time permits, we encourage Chairs to set aside time during the meeting to allow panelists to write their proposal feedback comments while other panelists are present to ask for additional feedback. With the truncated timeframe of the meetings, we recognize that this may not be possible.

We encourage panelists to use Slack to message the whole panel or individual panelists to assist in the writing of the proposal feedback comments.

Chairs should check the proposal feedback comments submitted by the panelists (in the case of Discussion panels, the final version submitted by the Primary reviewer)  and ask them to rewrite anything that is not clear or is not professional. The Chairs are responsible for signing-off all the Discussion panel proposal feedback comments.

Panel report

The Chair is responsible for writing a brief, high-level summary of the panel deliberations and sending it to the Panel Manager of the EC. There is no template and no need to cover all of these items. ​

• A very high-level discussion on the ranking process; any panel comments you want to share regarding the proposals just below the N line; this is related to the suggested use of unallocated hours: if available, would you rather have those hours go to the proposals in your panel straddling or just below the N line, or the very small and small proposals reviewed by the External panels in the same science category?​
• Any recommendations you may have about individual panelists (good and bad) with regards to how they participated in the discussion, how useful were their feedback comments, or if you would recommend them for Chairs or Vice-Chairs. ​
• Feedback (positive or negative) regarding Webex, Slack and/or SPIRIT. ​
• Suggestions regarding panel topics/separations. ​
• Any other feedback you may have regarding the proposal selection process.

During and After the EC Meeting

EC members have the same roles as responsibilities during the EC Meeting as Discussion Panelists during the Discussion Panel meetings.  

The only difference with respect to how the Discussion Panels are run is that at the EC meeting, Chairs will summarize highly ranked Medium proposals, detailing the high-level science questions that will be addressed. The EC will not be asked to explicitly consider any potential Science Duplications with any proposals from the Disucusion panels that are likely to be recommended for approval, but should such a concern arise, the TAC Chair will inform the Director of the discussion, with a suggestion for adjudication.

An additional task for the Chairs and Vice-Chairs is that, as panels finish ranking, STScI will run duplication checking software on all programs recommended for acceptance to search for Observation Duplications. SPD may reach out to the Chairs, Vice Chairs and At-Large Members for assistance adjudicating duplications in their science area; this assistance may be requested during or after the panel meetings.

Next: At-Large Members