Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire




Circulation: 15 people (12 chairs, 3 pundits)
Responses: 8 (7 chairs, 1 pundit)
In your opinion (somewhat speculative given that the
observations have yet to be made), is the Cycle 5 allocation
between normal, LP, and VLP likely to produce science at the
high levels expected from Chandra? Was the time allocated
between normal, LP, and VLP proposals appropriate? If not,
what should the allocation be?
8: balance good for Cycle 5
1) Comment: panel had freedom to move time between LP and VLP and
voted not to do so
2) Recommend: review, using metrics, in Cycle 7 +
3) Recommend: monitor science balance of VLPs
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO
Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire (cont)
• With respect to your panel, was the quality of the
lower-ranking approved LP or VLP proposals
(those just above the pass/fail line) higher or, at
least as high, as the highest-ranking, but
unapproved, normal proposals (those just below
the pass/fail line)?
• 7: approved VLP/LP higher quality than just
failing GO, 1 disagreed
• 2 said opposite: failing LP was of higher quality than
passing GO
• Agreed that standards should be higher for LP/VLP
given large time allocation
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO
Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire (cont)
 In your opinion, was there a significant difference
(other than observing time) in the nature of the LP
and VLP programs? For example, did the VLP
proposals address science questions that would not
have been addressed properly otherwise or, was
the nature of the approved programs different in
some way, such as the VLP being more of an
archive or "Legacy" nature than the LPs.
 5 Y, 2 N , general feeling that Legacy value is
higher and that proposals which were similar but
longer than GOs did not fare as well.
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO
Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire (cont)
 Do you have any recommendations regarding the peer review
process for consideration in planning future cycles?
 Generally happy with organisation
 Big Project Panel:
– more pre-defined structure for BPP, work w/chair in advance
– Allow time to read highly ranked LP/VLP, add 1 day?!
– Mandate proper presentation of highly ranked proposals
 Topical panels:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
circulation of panel member names < review
List of proposals by secondary and primary reviewer
LAN in panel rooms
Projector for spreadsheet
Pre-plan discussion order within panels
Telecon is hard
Specific allocation for high-risk proposals
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO
Changes in Cycle 6
 Operations/observation planning:
– Pitch angle restrictions – impact on time constrained
observations > 50 ksecs
– Ability to link archive and observing proposals
– Bakeout: see later in agenda
 Peer Review planning:
– Website:
> track reviewer status, travel + address information
> personalized access to proposals, reports etc
> access to Non-disclosure forms, review information
– Proposal distribution: CD and/or hardcopy, to be collected at
review
– Reports: TBD, we hope to move away from diskettes
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO
IIR OBSERVATION (1)
 CONTROL OF OBSERVERS’ PROPOSAL INFORMATION
– Proper measures may not have been taken to fully protect and control
information provided in the investigators’ proposals.
> Current review process could allow inappropriate dissemination of sensitive
information (e.g., salaries, intellectual capital).
– Cycle 5 review did not verify collection/disposal of proposer CD’s
– Requirement for individual salary data is concern of proposers
– RECOMMENDATION:
Investigate additional controls to reduce the possibility of inappropriate
dissemination of sensitive data, including minimizing proposal distribution,
verification of proper disposal of proposal data, and elimination or masking
of individual salary information.
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO
Response to IIR “Observation”
 CXC will review procedures and controls for
safeguarding sensitive information, areas to be
considered include:
– Completeness of procedures for safeguarding proprietary
information
– Increased training for all involved in peer review
– Earlier collection of non-disclosure forms
> Minimize number of people with access
–
–
–
–
–
Restricting transfer of electronic files
Verifying destruction of hardcopies and CDs
Methods for investigating misuse of information
Budget reviewers need for information
Physical security
 Timescale: completed to support Cycle 6 review
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO
CXC User Communication




Website: information, documentation, software etc.
Helpdesk search, submission, answer questions
USINT: observation planning
Electronic Bulletins and Announcements: as needed,
approximately monthly
 Newsletter: annual (electronic and hardcopy)
 AAS Exhibit: twice a year
 Workshops:
– CIAO : 5 to date, ~25 people per workshop
– Calibration: annual since 2001
 Electronic announcements of data readiness
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO
Helpdesk Statistics
Month
Ticket Activity During Month
Entered
Closed
Ticket Status as of End of Month
Net Change in Month
Active
Deferred
Total
October 02
41
42
-1
6
5
11
November
02
64
63
1
9
3
12
December
02
46
42
4
15
1
16
January 03
59
59
0
15
1
16
February 03
61
67
-6
7
3
10
366
359
7
15
2
17
April 03
45
50
-5
10
2
12
May 03
52
53
-1
10
1
11
June 03
44
31
13
21
3
24
July 03
50
40
10
31
3
34
August 03
83
98
-15
15
4
19
September
03
44
49
-5
9
5
14
March 03
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO
Topic Distribution of Helpdesk Tickets
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO
Observation Planning: USINT
 Procedures – posted on web page
– All Observers/PIs are contacted to confirm
observational parameters
– Allowed changes are made at CXC and confirmed
with Observer/PI
– Restricted changes (e.g. instrument, coordinates,
constraints) must be justified and approved by CDO.
CDO review includes check for conflicts with other
programs
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO
Cost Review Results (FDS)
-----------------------------------------------------budget request
no. of
budget approved
/fair-share proposals f-s intermediate as-requested
-------------- --------- ----- ------------ -----------0.00
6
0.50-0.95 7
7
0.95-1.05 143
143
1.06-1.15 16
1.16-1.30 11
2
2
7
1.31-1.60 10
1.61-2.10 7
1
6
2.11-3.50 2
CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03
Belinda Wilkes, CDO