Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Click on the expander buttons below for more information.

Proposal submissions

titleHow do we maintain the anononymity of the proposing team when the proposal needs to reference previous work or work in progress?

Writing a good proposal (including the presentation of relevant previous results) need not clash with dual-anonymous reviews. The goal in this regard is to minimize the chances that the proposing team can be identified, while writing the best possible proposal.

For instance, instead of explicitly stating that some previous results were obtained by the proposing team, which now requests follow up, one could consider writing something along the following lines:

'Previous results [ref. 1] have shown X. We wish to follow up on these discoveries, to learn Y, by doing Z.' 

Reference 1 at the end of the proposal might well list the authors of the current proposal, but that need not be obvious to the reviewer. 

If there is no published reference (but the analysis of the data has reached the point where it is being used to support the request for follow up observations), then existing unpublished results can certainly be included in the proposal, but without explicit reference to the previous proposal ID/title/PI/Co-Is (e.g., there could be a statement along the lines that 'in previous work being prepared for publication we showed the following:...').


Data access

titleWhat are the data proprietary periods?
  • Observations requested through Director’s Discretionary Time (DDT) typically have a proprietary period of three months. PIs may also choose to waive the proprietary period.

  • Open Time proposals typically have a proprietary period of 12 months after the last observation has been obtained.

  • Proprietary periods vary for Large Survey Projects (LSPs) depending on observing seasons.