CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire Circulation: 15 people (12 chairs, 3 pundits) Responses: 8 (7 chairs,

CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03 Belinda Wilkes, CDO

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 51) Comment: panel had freedom to move time between LP and VLP and

voted not to do so2) Recommend: review, using metrics, in Cycle 7 +3) Recommend: monitor science balance of VLPs


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



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.



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


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


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.


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


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

http://asc.harvard.edu/


Helpdesk Statistics

Month Ticket Activity During Month Ticket Status as of End of Month

Entered Closed 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

March 03 366 359 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


Topic Distribution of Helpdesk Tickets


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


Cost Review Results (FDS)

------------------------------------------------------budget request no. of budget approved/fair-share proposals f-s intermediate as-requested-------------- --------- ----- ------------ ------------0.00 60.50-0.95 7 - - 70.95-1.05 143 - - 1431.06-1.15 161.16-1.30 11 2 2 71.31-1.60 101.61-2.10 7 1 6 -2.11-3.50 2

Documents

CUC, 12 Jan 200411/18/03Belinda Wilkes, CDO Cycle 5 Chair+Pundit Questionaire Circulation: 15 people (12 chairs, 3 pundits) Responses: 8 (7 chairs,