This page provides a description of the roles and responsibilities for Science Policy Division (SPD) members in the JWST peer review process.

Panelist selection processes

Each SPD member is assigned primary responsibility for a subset of the panels for the proposal review. The SPD member will recruit panelists, using the TAC Panelist Selection (TPS) software as a guide to maintaining appropriate balance in geographic distribution, institutional type, seniority and, of course, scientific expertise.

Once the panel is recruited, the SPD member will work with the PSS to deal with questions and any issues that arise. If a panelist has to withdraw, the SPD member will recruit a replacement if there is reasonable time for the new member to review proposals prior to the meeting; if not, the SPD member will re-assign the primary and secondary reviewer duties for affected proposals. In general, the main factor in recruiting a new panel member is ensuring that key areas of scientific expertise are represented appropriately.

After the proposal deadline has passed, SPD members are responsible for checking that proposals are assigned to the appropriate panels, minimizing conflicts. Once the panel assignments are confirmed, SPD members proceed to panelist assignments for preliminary grading, including primary and secondary reviewer assignments. An automated procedure is used to develop an initial set of assignments based on the science keywords in the proposal and those submitted by the reviewers. SPD members review those initial assignments and adjust, as necessary, to balance the workload for each panelist while maintaining the appropriate level of expertise.

SPD members ensure that the PSSs who are investigators on JWST proposals are assigned to panels that are NOT reviewing those proposals.

Conflicts

STScI takes actions to minimize the potential for an appearance of conflict of interest in organizing the TAC. As with other STScI staff, those conflicts are identified before the meeting. In general, SPD members are assigned responsibility for recruiting panels that lie outside their range of scientific focus; they are therefore not responsible for recruiting the reviewers for their proposals and/or their scientific collaborators. If they submit proposals as Principal Investigator or co-Investigator, or have family conflicts at the same level, they are generally excluded from access to the panels reviewing those proposals. In extraordinary circumstances, exceptions may be made for proposals that are reviewed by the Executive Committee. In that case, the conflicted SPD member will follow the protocols for close collaborator conflicts and leave the meeting during the discussion of that proposal. Multiple SPD members are present as observers during the Executive Committee review.

SPD members do not participate in policy decisions (e.g. Telescope Time Review Board recommendations) regarding accepted proposals if they are conflicted.

During the meeting

SPD members have primary responsibility for the panels they recruited and should be prepared to field questions from the PSS, panel Chair, and/or panelists. They also act as observers or respond to policy queries from any panel (except for those where they are flagged as conflicted).

SPD members should only answer questions and comment on policy matters. They should call in another SPD member if they feel that there is the potential for an appearance of a personal conflict of interest.

After the meeting

SPD members are responsible for reviewing and approving the final version of the proposal feedback comments already signed off by the panel Chair and the PSS, to make sure the are consistent with the guidelines given in the Proposal Feedback Comments page.