IN CONFIDENCE Dear Colleague, We have received the attached proposal for observing time on JCMT and would greatly appreciate your opinion on its suitability. But first : 1. WE WOULD APPRECIATE AN IMMEDIATE REPLY THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE 2. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO REFEREE THIS PROPOSAL FOR ANY REASON PLEASE ADVISE SO THAT WE CAN ASSIGN ANOTHER REFEREE. 3. If you are willing to referee this proposal please send us your report before ** Wednesday, 27 April 2005 ** . You can cut/paste/edit the answers below into your initial response : To donna@jach.hawaii.edu, i.coulson@jach.hawaii.edu ----> Thank you : e-mail received. ----> I am able / not able to referee the proposal. ----> I shall send my referee report before 27 April 2005. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE REFEREE'S REPORT ------------------------------------------------ o - Where to send it o - What to send o - Guidance in providing the report Where to send it ---------------- Please send your report via email to the assessors (TAG members) below and to the Technical Secretariat : Assessors: e-mail: 1. Antonio Chrysostomou acc@star.herts.ac.uk 2. Jennifer Hatchell hatchell@astro.ex.ac.uk 3. Toby Moore tjtm@astro.livjm.ac.uk 4. Jason Stevens jas@roe.ac.uk 5. Dave Alexander dma@ast.cam.ac.uk 6. Dimitra Rigopoulou D.Rigopoulou1@physics.ox.ac.uk Technical Secretariat: 7. Iain Coulson i.coulson@jach.hawaii.edu 8. Donna DeLorm d.delorm@jach.hawaii.edu What to send ------------ Complete sections 1-5 below with reference to the notes that follow. Please return only the section between the 'cut here' lines. ------- cut here, top ------------------------------------------------- PANEL FOR THE ALLOCATION FOR TELESCOPE TIME PATT OBSERVING PROPOSAL -- REFEREE'S REPORT PROPOSAL REF NO : M05BU APPLICANT : TITLE : " " 1. ASSESSMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT see note 2.1, and choose a or b or c or d 2. EVALUATION OF THE PLAN FOR OBSERVING AND DATA REDUCTION see note 2.2, and choose a or b or c or d 3. URGENCY OF THE PROPOSED OBSERVATIONS see note 2.3, and choose a or b or c 4. COMMENTS see note 2.4 5. OVERALL GRADE see note 2.5 ------- cut here, bottom ------------------------------------------------- Guidance in providing the report -------------------------------- 1. Background 2. Completing the Referee form 3. Considerations 4. Confidentiality 1. Background ------------- Applications for telescope time are considered by the PATT, which is composed of astronomers who are the professional peers of the applicants. The PATT allocates observing time on telescopes in which PPARC has an interest. Proposals are assessed with the assistance of referees comments. 2. Completing the Referee form ------------------------------ 2.1 Assessment of the scientific justification of the project e.g. - How do you rate the scientific aims of the proposal? - Are there conflicting / confusing goals? - Have the potential difficulties been raised and discussed? Which of the descriptions below best matches the characteristics of this proposal ? : a - Extremely thorough and compelling b - Convincing and well described c - Adequate, with minor problems d - Inadequate (too brief, confusing, incomplete or incorrect) 2.2 Evaluation of the plan for observing and data reduction e.g. - Are the details of the programme dealt with/understood? - Are the target objects, required integration times, RA and Dec, and instrumentation correct? - Is the telescope requested the correct one? Which of the descriptions below best matches the characteristics of this proposal ? : a - Thorough and clearly understood b - Correct and well described c - Adequate, with minor problems d - Inadequately described or poorly understood 2.3 Urgency of the proposed observations Which of the descriptions below best matches the characteristics of this proposal ? : a - Timely and Competitive; must be done now b - Should be done now c - Urgency is not a major consideration 2.4 Comments This part of the reply form is intended to be free format, so please expand section 4 in as much detail as you wish, explaining the reasons for your choices in 2.1 - 2.3 above. In addition, if you feel this application is not, as it stands, of the highest scientific quality, please suggest how this proposal might be improved in future submissions. Comment specifically on any areas that need developing, correcting or changing. You might also wish to comment on the applicant's competence to carry out the proposed project to a successful conclusion. Please mark any comments which you feel should be communicated back to the applicant. 2.5 Overall merit. This numerical grading scheme matches that used by the TAG assessors. 1 - A clear proposal with potentially seminal results. 2 - A potentially seminal project that has perhaps not been clearly explained or has minor flaws. Grade is given for potential for good science. 3 - A solid proposal which ought to get time - depending on competition for RA/Dec and time left after allocating higher ranked proposals. 4 - A proposal with some flaw. 5 - A proposal with serious flaws either in concept or design. Please grade on this scale : intermediate values (1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5) are also acceptable. 3. Considerations ----------------- - The JCMT is heavily over-subscribed for periods of good weather (quality 1-2). Proposals that require such weather should have the potential for seminal results. - Please do not approach the applicant(s) directly. Assessors will follow up on points requiring clarification. 4. Confidentiality ------------------ If you wish any of your comments copied to the applicants as part of their feedback please indicate which comments in your text. Otherwise all of your comments will be considered confidential. *********************************************************************** Thank you very much for your help! Donna DeLorm for: Iain Coulson Technical Secretary to the UK Time Allocation Group for the JCMT (Joint Astronomy Centre, Hilo, Hawaii) email: d.delorm@jach.hawaii.edu tel : +1-808-969-6504 fax : +1-808-969-6591