This page describes the Code of Conduct for those participating in the JWST peer review process. STScI strives for a collegial and professional environment for all participants in its activities. At any time, please feel free to talk or send a message to any member of STScI staff supporting the review process if you have any concerns. For serious issues or formal complaints, please contact Neill Reid (Multi-mission Project Scientist), Mercedes López-Morales (AD for Science), Laura Watkins (Deputy Head of Science Mission Office), Katey Alatalo (Head of JWST Science Policies), or Amaya Moro-Martín (Deputy Head of JWST Science Policies).

All participants

All participants in the proposal review process (including STScI staff and observers) are expected to:

• Read the Review Information Guide and familiarize themselves with their role and responsibilities.
• Complete their contributions in a timely fashion, or communicate early when this will not be possible. 
• Be respectful in any written or verbal communications you have as part of the review process.
• Step in to address abusive or bullying behavior.
• Be respectful of all regardless of differences (professional or otherwise).
• Actively help create an environment free of harassment.

Discussion panelists

In addition, discussion panelists are expected to:

• Be prepared and contribute to the panel review.
• Evaluate the scientific merit of the proposal.
• Be an active participant in the discussions.
• Do not interrupt others or talk over others.
• Keep comments succinct and to the point and thus give everyone the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.
• Be polite and professional in your written feedback comments, especially when providing critical comments.

Panel chairs

In addition to the code of conduct for discussion panelists, Chairs are expected to:

• Lead by example in creating the appropriate environment for free and professional discussion.
• Lead the panel in a collegial and welcoming way and respond immediately to any abusive, bullying or unprofessional behavior.
• Proactively encourage participation of reviewers who may be less experienced at panel reviews.
• Proactively solicit input from each panel member in the discussion of each proposal; ensure that the discussion is not dominated by a few reviewers.
• Keep the discussion moving and end on time to allow for sufficient time and discussion for all the proposals in the panel.
• Keep the discussion focused on the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, and no other tangential topics.

External panelists

In addition, external panelists are expected to:

• Evaluate the scientific merit of the proposal.
• Be polite and professional in your written feedback comments, especially when providing critical comments.

Next: Confidentiality - Cycle 4