The proposal selection process is organized by the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). More information on everything listed here can be found on subsequent pages. This page is intended to give a high-level summary of the overall process.

JWST Telescope Allocation Committee (TAC)

The task of the JWST TAC is to recommend a Science Program to the STScI Director in response to the Call for Proposals. The STScI Director is the Selecting Official for JWST. Based on the TAC recommendations, the Director makes the final allocation of observing time and funding.

Proposals are selected through competitive and dual-anonymous peer review. A broad range of scientists from the international astronomical and planetary science communities evaluates and ranks all submitted proposals using a well-defined set of criteria and paying special attention to any potential conflicts of interest. There are two TAC chairs overseeing the entire review process, one for the Galactic panels (Solar System; Exoplanet Atmospheres and Habitability; Exoplanetary System Formation and Dynamics; Stars and Stellar Populations; Gas, Dust and the ISM), and one for the Extragalactic panels (Nearby Galaxies to Cosmic Noon; High-Redshift Galaxies and the Distant Universe; Super Massive Black Holes and Active Galaxies). Panelists are chosen by the Science Policy Group (SPG) at STScI based on their scientific expertise in the areas under review by the topical panels. Proposals are assigned by SPG to individual reviewers based on the reviewers' expertise and based partly on the keywords given in the proposal and partly on analysis of the proposal text by STScI-developed tools.  

Depending on their size and type, proposals are reviewed by the Executive Committees (with face-to-face in-person meetings), by the Discussion panels (with face-to-face online meetings), or by the External panels (which provide asynchronous reviews). 

Each of the two Executive Committees (ECs) includes a TAC Chair and the Chairs and Vice Chairs from all the Discussion panels corresponding panels. The primary responsibility of the ECs is to review Large GO proposals (> 130 hours), Treasury GO programs, Legacy AR programs and other requests for substantial resources, such as large Pure Parallel programs. The ECs are provided additional input on proposals from the Discussion panels, via the corresponding panel Chair and Vice Chair, and from the Expert Reviewers, that provide asynchronous reviews. The Executive Committee also adjudicates any cross-panel scientific issues, as needed. 

The Discussion panels are managed by a panel Chair and a Vice Chair. Similar to the panel Chair, the Vice Chair does not review Discussion proposals but helps the panel Chair with their duties and helps alleviate proposal conflicts for the panel Chair. Discussion panels assess and grade Small (> 20 and ≤ 50 hours), Medium (> 50 and ≤ 130 hours) and all Target of Opportunity and Survey proposals, regardless of size.  The time allocated to each panel is proportional to the time requested by the proposals assigned to that panel; there are separate allocations for Small and Medium proposals. Discussion panels do not adjudicate Large (>130 hours), Treasury GO proposals, or AR Legacy proposals, but they advise their Chair and Vice Chair on the scientific merit of the subset of those proposals assigned to their panel.

The External panels review the Very Small GO proposals (≤ 20 hours) and regular AR proposals. The proposals likely to be recommended to the Director for acceptance are provided to the panel Chairs of the face-to-face Discussion panels of that same Scientific Category prior to the meeting to allow them to identify potential duplications with the proposals reviewed by their panels. Duplications are adjudicated by the panel Chairs, with feedback from the Discussion panels, when required.

Expert Reviewers provide asynchronous reviews for: (1) proposals evaluated by the Executive Committees; (2) proposals with a large number of panelists that are conflicted; (3) joint-observatory proposals. In the latter case, the Expert Reviewers are drawn from the joint-observatories' user communities. 

All panelists read their assigned proposals, and then grade on an absolute scale against the primary criteria. Panelists also write Proposal Feedback Comments - Cycle 4 for a subset (Discussion) or all (External) of their assigned proposals.

To assist in the review process, each panel is assigned a Panel Support Scientist (PSS). The role of the PSS is to ensure the process runs smoothly and act as liaison between the panel and STScI and to ensure the discussion remains focused on the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the proposals.

Accessing proposals, grading and writing proposal feedback comments

A lot of the proposal review work happens via the SPIRIT proposal review tool. There you will see which proposals you have been assigned and how to access the proposals under review in your panel. You can choose to read them online or download them for offline reading. You will also use SPIRIT to record your grades (both preliminary/External grades and final meeting grades), and to finalize your proposal feedback comments. There are places to leave private notes, and to share remarks with other panelists as well. You'll also find important contacts for your panel, including the Chair, SPG manager and PSS.

Review guides and timelines

Guide for Discussion Panelists

Guide for External (No Discussion) Panelists

Guide for Executive Committee (Chairs and Vice Chairs)

Guide for Panel Support Scientists