Step by step guidelines for the review

These guidelines are intended to provide a quick reference to the OPC/Expert Panels reviewers of ESO observing proposals.

 

These guidelines are usually updated close to the opening of a new review cycle.

News in P114

Like in previous periods, also in P114 the Distributed Peer Review is applied to proposals requesting less than 16 hours (and not including Target of Opportunity runs). About 50% of the proposals will be reviewed via this new channel, hence decreasing the load on the panels by the same amount. In a few words: the panel members will be reviewing half of the normal programmes which they were reviewing in the past.

Given the drastic reduction in the number of proposals, as of Period 110 all proposals assigned to a given panel will be reviewed and pre-graded by all panel members during the pre-meeting phase. Each proposal will be assigned to one primary reviewer. All the remaning, non-conflicted panel members will be assigned as secondary reviewers. As a consequence, the role of grader has been removed.

 

General information

The review process is supervised by the Observing Programmes Committee (OPC) Chair and it is organized in panels, grouped per scientific category (A,B,C,D). In the current review scheme, there are 2 panels in A, 3 panels in B, and 4 panels each in C and D categories. Each Panel consists of 6 members, including 1 Panel Chair and 5 Panelists. One of the 5 Panelists is usually asked to take on the extra role of vice-Chair, to replace the Panel Chair in case of conflicts.

The OPC is composed by all 13 Panel Chairs, plus 3 extra members (panel co-Chairs) to compensate for the smaller number of Expert Panels in science categories A (2) and B (3). This is because each science category must be equally represented in the OPC by the same number of reviewers.  

Each proposal is assigned one Primary and up to five Secondary reviewers. They will pre-grade these proposals and, if not triaged after the pre-grading, the Primary reviewer will present their scientific case at the panel meetings. All panel members will participate to the scientific discussion and grading of the proposals during the panel meetings.

All reviewers have to report conflicts on all proposals in their Panel, irrespective of their Primary or Secondary reviewers role.

 

Practical aspects

The new web tool called PEI (Proposal Evaluation Interface) will be used for the entire review process, from the conflict declarations to the panel meetings (proposals grading) and post-meeting activitis (finalisation of the feedback to the proposals PI). PEI can be accessed via your personal User Portal account (direct link to PEI on the left-side menu) and it is straightforward to use; nevertheless, for the users convenience, the tool includes a detailed help guide, featuring several video tutorials.

Also, the proposal ID format has recently changed, but since the review and scheduling processes still relies on both the old and the new review tools, both proposal IDs are provided as often as possible. For convenience, the PEI will display both versions.

Large Programmes are now submitted on a yearly basis, only in even periods. On-going Large Programmes are also reviewed only once per year, in odd Periods.

As of P108 applicants must formulate the scientific rationale of their proposals following the anonymisation guidelines. Examples and a detailed description of the dual anonymous peer review paradigm are described here. Specific instructions for the reviewers are provided here. During the review you will be able to report possible violations of the anonymisation guidelines directly from PEI.

The following non-anonymized fields are not included in the proposal version made available to the panels:

  • Investigators
  • Background and Expertise
  • Report on Previous Usage of ESO Facilities
  • Publications
  • Data Product Delivery Plan (for Large Programmes only)

These will only be accessible to the panels after the ranking phase is completed and only upon request. All the sections of the proposals distributed to the panels before that must comply with the anonymization guidelines. Failure to abide by the anonyisation rules may lead to the disqualification of the proposal. Panel members must log possible violations via the Proposal Evaluation Interface (for this there is a dedicated field in the interface).

In case of questions, please contact the Observing Programmes Office (opo@eso.org).  

 

Conflicts declaration and category changes

A few days after the submission deadline, proposals will be distributed based on their scientific category to the Expert Panels, automatically taking into account possible institutional and present/past collaboration conflicts (detected by the distribution software based on the information contained in the proposals and the User Portal profiles of reviewers and co-investigators). At this stage, all proposals within a given panel are assigned to the members of that panel with no primary/secondary role distinction. This is to allow the declaration of conflicts before the primary/secondary assignements are finalised. This takes place once this initial phase is completed and before the pre-grading starts.

All reviewers will need to perform the initial checks on their panel assignments via the PEI interface. Here follows a summary of the actions to be performed with PEI during this phase. More detailed information is provided in this presentation.

1. Check for conflicts of interest: ESO's policies concerning conflicts are described in the document Rules for Dealing with Conflicts of Interest. Although with the anonymization rules the number of detectable conflicts has significantly reduced, reviewers still need to report conflicts to OPO, whenever they feel unable to make an impartial assessment of a proposal.

2. Check the OPC category: All proposals qualifying for panel review are assigned to one of the four scientific categories:  

A -  Cosmology and the intergalactic medium

B -  Galaxies

C -  Interstellar medium, star formation and planetary systems

D -  Stellar evolution

In general, category changes are strongly discouraged.  Deviations from this rule will be considered only under very  exceptional circumstances.  If you identify such an exceptional  case, first  discuss it with (and have it approved by) your Panel Chair.  The Panel Chair should confirm the approval (or rejection) via email to OPO. Only then you should issue the category change request. Please note that any category changes  must  be reported by the given deadline. For this please check the timeline. OPO will assess a transfer to another category and the reviewers will be notified about any re-assignment. The identification code of a proposal that has been reassigned to another OPC category remains unchanged and so do the scientific keywords which characterise it.

Conflict declarations and possible category change requests must be submitted before the next phase (pre-grading) can start. Thus, it is essential that this first phase is completed within a few days after the release of the proposals and definitely by the deadline (see Appendix A for the complete timeline).

For even semesters only: Reviewers cannot be PIs of Large Programmes proposed in the Period in which they serve. In cases where they are a Co-I on a Large Programme, they will be conflicted in the discussion of that specific Large Programme, but they are expected to evaluate all other Large Programmes assigned to them.

 

Pre-grading

As soon as the conflict declaration phase is completed, the final proposal distribution is performed by OPO, taking into account the accepted category changes and conflict reports.  For the pre-grading phase, all reviewers will use the Proposal Evaluation Interface (PEI), which is accessible via their User Portal account. Instructions for the usage of PEI in the pre-grading phase can be found here.

All proposals for Normal Programmes, Monitoring, GTO Programmes and ToO Programmes that have been assigned to the reviewers must be read and given a grade and comment before the panel meetings. Each proposal has one Primary reviewer and up to five Secondary reviewers.

In even Periods, all assigned Large Programme proposals need to be evaluated as well by all non-conflicted reviewers in the category of the proposal.

OPC members have specific duties in addition to the regular proposal assignments given to other reviewers. These include evaluating all Large Programme proposals across all categories (only applicable in even periods).

The criteria to be applied in the evaluation of the proposals are (in order of importance):

  • scientific merit and the contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge;
  • evidence of sufficient resources and an adequate strategy for complete and timely data analysis;
  • the scientific outcome of previous observations with ESO telescopes.

Important note: while evaluating the last two points, reviewers shoud keep in mind that the applicants must comply to the anonymisation guidelines, and hence the information will be necessarily incomplete. As a general rule reviewers should trust the statements by the applying team. In case of doubt they can ask OPO to verify the correctness of specific statements.

Proposals requesting time for the continuation or completion of programmes already accepted during previous periods should be given special consideration.

Guaranteed Time Observations (GTO) are protected against duplication. Proposals simply duplicating Guaranteed Time Observations should be rejected. Potential conflicts should have been signalled in the specific field of the proposals. The GTO Protected Observations Web Page  for the given period is also useful.

A similar protection applies to Public Survey observations, which should not be duplicated without specific justification in open time. These protections are listed on the Public Survey Protected Observations Web Page. No Public Surveys are running at the moment.

Reviewers must assign grades and comments to each run of the assigned proposals. Before starting their work, reviewers should consult the guidelines for grading and the grade scale to be used (1.0=best … 5.0=worst), which can be found in Appendix C.

The full grade scale should be used so as to ensure that the resulting ranking of the proposals is as meaningful as possible. Grades assigned by individual reviewers must be specified with one decimal digit (e.g. 2.7).

Proposals should be evaluated based solely on their contents. The Observatory will evaluate the technical feasibility of programmes. Should clarification of some technical aspects of a proposal be necessary, please contact OPO.

To enter the proposal grades and comments the web-based PEI interface must be used. Instructions for the usage of the PEI can be found here.

Once the reported conflicts have been resolved by OPO, the PEI will allow the reviewers to enter grades and comments for all proposals assigned to them. Note the following:

  • Each run of every proposal must receive a grade.
  • The Primary and Secondary reviewers must provide comments for each proposal, emphasizing strengths and weaknesses.

While different grades may be assigned to different runs, the comments apply to the proposal as a whole. The pre-meeting comments entered in PEI serve different purposes. They are the basis for the panel discussion and, in the case of triaged proposals, they are used for the feedback to the applicants. Grades and comments for Normal, GTO, Monitoring and ToO Programmes will be accessible only to the members of the applicable panel (and to the OPC Chair). Members of other panels will not be able to access them. Grades and comments for Large Programmes will be readable by all panel members of the category in which the Large Programme was submitted, as well as by all OPC members (only applicable in even periods).

It is absolutely necessary that reviewers respect the deadline for the submission of the pre-grades (Appendix A). Triage can be carried out only once all members of all panels have completed the pre-grading.

 

Large Programmes (even semesters only)

During this phase, all non-conficted panel members review and grade all Large Programmes beloging to their scientific category. The grades will be used to prepare a a preliminary list of the promoted Large Programmes to be discussed at the OPC meeting.

 

 

Triage and pre-meeting activities  

Once all reviewers have submitted their pre-grades, the outcome of the triage (see below) and other relevant reports will be made available via PEI or via the OPC Web Page.

The lowest-ranked runs will be triaged. The reviewers will get the chance to rescue some proposals if considered necessary. Triaged proposals will be listed in the PEI and it will be possible to rescue proposals directly from there during the panel meetings, preferably at the start of the discussion. As a rule, triaged runs are not considered for scheduling, and are formally rejected. A description of the triage process is given in Appendix D.

For OPC members only: review OPC-specific documents.

The following documents are made available to OPC members:

  • List of promoted Large Programmes (only in even Periods)
  • Reports on ongoing Large Programmes (only in odd periods).

For Panel Chairs only: prepare for the meeting of your panel

It is good practice to have a clear idea of the panel’s tasks. Deciding beforehand which proposals will be discussed on a given day is very useful. The list of selected proposals (e.g., for Day#1) should be shared with the rest of the panel (including the Scientific Assistant assigned to your panel) before the start of the meeting.

 

The Panel Meetings

The individual online panel meetings are spread over several days. The Proposal Evaluation Interface (PEI) will be used during the panel meetings to associate grades and comments to each proposal discussed.

 

Instructions for the usage of PEI during the Panel meetings are availabe here for the Panel members and here for the Panel chairs.

 

Individual panel meetings – General procedure

The corresponding Chair leads the panel meeting. The mission of each panel is to grade all Normal, GTO, Monitoring and ToO programme runs assigned to their panel. Any proposal that had been triaged can be rescued by the Panel Chair via the PEI, upon the request of one or more reviewers (including the Chair). Needless to say, those who propose to rescue a triaged proposal must be non-conflicted with that proposal. If rescued, proposals are then automatically added to the list to be reviewed and graded by the panel during the meeting. None of the remaining triaged proposals is discussed further.

Typically, the Primary Reviewer presents the proposal and his/her assessment. Then the Secondary Reviewers give their comments. This is followed by a general discussion and concluded by assigning a grade (1.0=best...5.0=worst) in the PEI by all non-conflicted reviewers.

The panel may decide to grade a proposal as a whole (i.e., to assign the same grade to all its runs) or assign different grades to individual runs. This decision has to be taken before opening the grading phase of a given proposal by the non-conflicted reviewers and must be specified in the PEI by the Panel Chair. While it is legitimate to assign different grades to different runs of a given proposal, reviewers should be aware that this implies that some of them may end up being scheduled and others not.

The mean and the standard deviation of the grades of the individual reviewers are computed and stored in the database. The mean is adopted as the panel “final grade” (as reported in PEI) and used as reference to establish the rankings. No information will be displayed in PEI for conflicted reviewers (for those proposals with whcih they have declared a conflict).

Conflicted reviewers must leave the [virtual] room during the discussion. The conflicts of interest identified prior to the panel meetings are reported by PEI. Should an additional conflict be identified during the meeting, the conflicted person should signal it to the Panel Chair and leave the [virtual] room for the discussion. The Panel Chair will then record the new conflict in the PEI.  

Proposals must be evaluated as submitted. In particular, the panel should refrain from recommending a different time allocation as compared to what was requested in the proposals. However, the panel may exceptionally request time allocation changes if there is a compelling scientific justification. In such a case, a request should be sent to opo@eso.org with the justification. Such a change should also be described in the feedback to the PI.

Requests for clarification of technical aspects of a proposal should be sent to opo@eso.org. Answers to technical feasibility questions are provided within 24 hours. Only questions submitted before the end of the panel sessions can be processed.

The runs are ranked according to their grade on a telescope-by-telescope basis. Different runs of a given proposal with the same grade are assigned the same rank. A merged ranking of all proposals is established across all panels for each telescope. The assigned grades are re-normalised so as to ensure consistency across panels.

A scientific assistant supports the panel in its work. All questions addressed to opo@eso.org (e.g. on procedures, policies or the technical feasibility) should be communicated through the scientific assistant.

Target of Opportunity (TOO) runs

ToO runs are defined for targets that cannot be known more than one week before the observation needs to be executed. (See Call for Proposals for more details). Programmes may include a mixture of ToO runs and non-ToO runs. The regular runs are evaluated and scheduled according to the general procedure. ToO runs should be graded consistently with all other runs with which they compete for allocation of time. 

After the end of the panel meeting, OPO prepares a merged list of ToO runs to be discussed during the OPC meeting and finally recommended for implementation. This merged ToO list includes a tentative cut-off line to be discussed and approved by the OPC. Runs below the cut-off line will not be considered for scheduling. Only A-ranked ToO runs will be considered for scheduling.

Large Programmes (even periods only)

  • Approved Large Programmes (LPs) are given top priority in the Service Mode queues. 
  • LPs of a given scientific category (ABCD) are evaluated and pre-graded by all non conflicted OPC and panel members of the given category.
  • Based on the pregrades, OPO compiles a ranked list and propose a cutoff for the discussion during the panels and at the OPC meeting.
  • The LPs above the cutoff line are indicated as promoted.
  • Each LP is assigned to a Primary reviewer (choosen amongst the OPC members of the given scientific category).
  • The tentative list of promoted LPs is distributed to the OPC members in due course before the start of the panel meetings. 
  • The OPC members are entitled to request that one or more LPs below the tentative cutoff-line are promoted. 
  • The requests must be sent to the OPC Chair. For the programme to be considered, the OPC Chair must receive at least two requests.
  • During the panel meetings, the LPs of a given category are discussed by all panels separately. During this phase no grading or voting takes place. The purpose of the discussion in the panels is to provide the corresponding Chairs (and co-Chairs where applicable) with evaluations and opinions to be discussed at the OPC meeting. It serves also to consolidate the list of promoted LPs.
  • The final list of promoted LPs is approved before the start of the OPC meeting and circulated by OPO.

 

The OPC Meeting

The OPC meeting is scheduled after the Panel meetings are over (see Appendix A). Conflicted OPC members must refrain from participating in the discussion of the relevant proposal/s.

Final review of LPs and GTO LPs (even periods only)

A significant fraction of the OPC meeting is dedicated to the final evaluation of the new Large Programme proposals. A more detailed description of the voting procedure is given in Appendix E.

  • Only the promoted LPs are listed in the PEI during the OPC meeting.
  • All promoted LPs are presented by their Primary reviewers and the discussions which took place in the panels of the given category are summarised by the corresponding Chairs. 
  • All non-conflicted OPC members participate to the general discussion, which is led by the OPC Chair. 
  • A vote (Yes/No/Abstention) follows.
  • Only LPs which receive the qualified majority are recommended for approval to the Director General.
  • GTO LPs (LPs with GTO contract keywords) are treated in the same way as open-time LPs.

Detailed instructions for the usage of PEI by OPC members during the OPC meeting are presented here. Instructions for the OPC Chair are provided here.

Final review of ToO runs

Decision about the final recommendation of ToO runs is made by the whole OPC based on the merged ranking provided by OPO.

Presentation of the VLT/I-ALMA Joint programmes (as of P112)

OPO will present the ranking list of the VLT/I-ALMA joint programmes.

Review of merged rankings of panels

ESO provides a merged ranked list of all runs per telescope based on re-normalised grades. The Panel Chairs should cross-check the merged ranking and make sure it reflects the recommendations of their panel and no undue conflicts or duplications are present. This is also the time when critical cases related to the proposal anonymisation should be flagged and discussed, if required.

Review of ongoing LP reports (odd periods only)

PIs of LPs approved in previous semesters are required to submit periodic reports on the progress of their projects. The reports are collected by OPO and distributed to the OPC members in due course. Each report is assigned to a Primary reviewer, who will present the case at the OPC meeting. The OPC is supposed to examine the reports, approve/reject possible time compensation requests, require actions on the PI side and approve/reject/pause the continuation of the LPs. Normally, only critical cases are discussed at the OPC meeting.

For OPC111, this part is handled outside PEI, but in the future it will be part of the PEI as well.

 

Post-meeting activities

The Primary reviewer provides a text with OPC or panel comments for each proposal via the PEI, highlighting strengths and weaknesses. The feedback should help the proposers to understand the outcome and possibly to improve the proposal for re-submission. Reviewers can take notes and/or write comments in the PEI during the whole review process. Draft feedback notes or comments from other reviewers will be accessible to the Primary reviewer for compiling the final feedback to the applicants. Once ready, the Primary reviewer will submit his/her feedback to the Approver (usually the Panel Chair, or the co-/vice-chair in case the Chair is conflicted). The Approver will then check the proposed feedback, make revisions (if needed) and aprove it.

In general, the Panel Chair will be the contact point in case the PIs asks for further feedback and/or clarifications after the results of the proposal evauation will be made public.

Feedback comments must be submitted using the PEI by the deadline specified in the OPC time-line (Appendix A). The OPC Chair is responsible for the final version of the comments to be sent to the PIs.

 

 

Appendix A - Timeline

ESO Period 114 - Proposal submission: deadline March 21, 2024 12:00 CEST

  1. Distribution of the observing proposals to the reviewers: March 21
  2. Reviewers report conflicts of interest and possible category changes: April 2
  3. Opening of PEI for pre-grading: April 4
  4. Submission of pre-grades by reviewers: May 3
  5. Release of the triaged proposals in PEI: May 7
  6. Panel and OPC online meetings:
    • Expert Panels: May 10-17 (online)
    • OPC (for OPC members only):  May 21 and 22 (hybrid)
  7. Submission of feedback (by primary reviewers): June 7
  8. Submission of final feedback (by Approvers) : June 14
  9. Submission of feedback for LPs (for OPC members): June 7
  10. Submission of final feedback for LPs (for the OPC Chair): June 14

 

Appendix B - Conflict declaration and Category change requests

 

B.1 Reporting conflicts of interest 

During the initial phase of the review, you will be asked to declare possible conflicts of interest. For this you will be given access to all proposals assigned to your panel via the PEI. We recommend that you read the proposal abstract and you inspect the scientific rationale of the proposal to identify possible conflicts. There are three types of conflicts:

  • Close collaborator or former advisor
  • Strong competitor or involved in competing proposal
  • Close personal ties

You will be able to select one of these in PEI, which will also offer you the possibility of providing a comment to better describe the potential conflict. Once submitted, the conflict declaration will be reviewed by OPO, which will take a final decision. In case of conflict acceptance, the corresponding proposal will disappear from the list of your assignements. More details on the procedure can be found in this presentation.

We strongly recommend that you go through all proposals and you identify possible conflicts first. Although it is possible to signal conflicts at a later stage, this has quite some impact on the workflow. Therefore, it is very important that the conflict declaration is as complete as possible alreay at this phase.

 

B.2 Requesting OPC category changes

Category change requests must be considered only in exceptional cases and must be justifided on solid scientific grounds. It is therefore very important that the reviewer requesting the change provides a detailed justification and a suggestion for the new category. This must be done after consulting with the Chair of the panel.

OPO will examine the requests and take a final decision. In case the request is accepted, the corresponding proposal will be re-assigned to a panel in the new category.

More details on the procedure can be found in this presentation.

 

Appendix C - Evaluation and grading guidelines

For each proposal you will be providing a grade (between 1=outstanding and 5=unsuitable). For proposals containing multiple runs (e.g. for different instruments), different grades can be attributed to different runs.

The grade scale to be used is defined as follows:

1.0 – outstanding: breakthrough science

1.5 – excellent: definitely above average

2.0 – very good: no significant weaknesses

2.5 – good: minor deficiences do not detract from strong scientific case

3.0 – fair: good scientific case, but with definite weaknesses

3.5 – rather weak: limited science return prospects

4.0 – weak: little scientific value and/or questionable scientific strategy

4.5 – very weak: deficiences outweight strengths

5.0 – unsuitable

  • Proposals with grades larger than 3.0 will not be considered for scheduling. 
  • The full grade scale (1 to 5) should be used so as to ensure that the resulting ranking of the proposals is as meaningful as possible. 
  • Grades can and should be specified with one decimal digit (e.g. 2.7). 
  • While evaluating a proposal, do not try to double guess what grade you should give it in order to have it scheduled. Keep in mind that the final grade will be computed as the aggregated value resulting from the evaluations of other reviewers. Also, the same grade has very different implications at different telescopes, depending on their demand. Finally, other constraints (like RA distribution, moon restrictions and atmospheric conditions) have a critical role in the final outcome of the scheduling process. 
  • While reviewing the proposals you should keep in mind these aspects:
    • Does the proposal clearly indicate which important, outstanding question/s will be addressed?
    • Is there sufficient background/context for the non-expert (i.e., someone not specialized in this particular sub-field)?
    • Are previous results (either by proposers themselves or in the published literature) clearly presented?
    • Are the proposed observations and the Immediate Objectives pertinent to the background description?
    • Is the sample selection clearly described, or, if a single target, is its choice justified?
    • Are the instrument modes, and target location(s) specified clearly?
    • Is the signal-to-noise ratio specified in the proposal sufficient to reach the scientific goals?
    • Will the proposed observations add significantly to the knowledge of this particular field?

 

In general, the scientific merit should be assessed solely on the content of the proposal, according to the above criteria. Proposals may contain references to published papers. Consultation of those references should not, however, be required for a general understanding of the proposal.

Please note that ESO encourages reviewers to give full consideration to well-designed, high-risk/high-impact proposals even if there is no guarantee of a positive outcome or definite detection.

Appendix D - The Triage process

Triage is applied to Normal and ToO programmes before the panel meetings. Runs ranked in the lowest third, according to the pre-grades, should in general not be discussed at the panel meeting. This is to maximize the amount of time for the evaluation of the most interesting proposals. The triaged runs will not be considered for allocation of observing time.

This appendix gives a brief description of the triage procedure as applied at ESO.

Pre-grades are renormalised to provide equal averages and the standard deviations of all the grades of each reviewer. For each run, a single grade and standard deviation is computed by averaging the renormalised grades of all the reviewers. 

For each telescope, the runs of Normal and ToO Programmes are ranked according to their grade. Normally the lowest 30% (in time and per telescope) are triaged. To ensure significant oversubscription per telescope, in some cases, triaged runs – including runs for non-optimal conditions – are rescued from triage for operational reasons. These rescued runs must be discussed by the panel as all other non-triaged runs. 

The triaged proposals are flagged with a "T" in the lists displayed by PEI (which also contains a specific tab including only the triaged proposals).

Note: depending on the specific demand in the given cycle, different triage fractions may be applied to different telescopes.

Appendix E - Large Programmes promotion

In the past the pre-selection of Large Programmes (LP) to be discussed at the OPC meeting was carried out in Joint Panel meetings. In these meetings, all non-conflicted panel members of a given scientific category discussed and voted the promotion of LPs in their category to the next step, that is the OPC meeting. The purpose of the pre-selection is to reduce the number of proposal to be discussed and voted at the OPC meeting, hence allowing the OPC members to focus on the most promising cases.

With the advent of the pandemic and the difficulty in organising online joint Panel Meetings it was decided to follow a different approach, which is described in this Appendix.

During the pre-meeting phase, all panel members are asked to review and grade the LPs in their scientific category. The pre-selection of the Large Programmes to be discussed at the OPC meeting is based on these evaluations. The process is as follows:

  1. The grades of each referee are calibrated using the grade distribution of normal programmes, to reduce the systematic differences between their grading scales. The procedure is identical to that adopted for all other programmes in the review.
  2. For each LP, the calibrated grades are combined to yield the calibrated average grades (AvgNorm) and standard deviation (StdNorm).
  3. The programmes are sorted by ascending AvgNorm.
  4. A nominal cutoff line is presented to the OPC members ahead of the start of the Panel meetings.
  5. The OPC members can propose to promote one or more LPs initially placed below the cut-off line.
  6. The requests for promotion are sent to and approved by the OPC Chair.
  7. The list of promoted LPs is finalised by the end of the Panel meetings and circulated to the OPC members before the start of the OPC meeting.

Appendix F - Large Programmes voting procedure

This appendix summarizes the content of the Internal Memorandum of November 14, 2018 (Voting procedure for Large Programmes at the OPC Meeting).

  • The list of promoted LPs to be discussed at the OPC meeting is consolidated before the OPC meeting starts. The initial list is based on the grades provided during the pre-meeting phase. Each OPC member has the right of requesting the inclusion of proposals initially excluded from the list of promoted LPs. 
  • The requests have to be submitted to and approved by the OPC Chair. See Appendix E for more details.
  • Non promoted LPs are formally rejected and cannot be reconsidered.
  • After the presentation of the given LP by the Primary referee and the discussion open to all non-conflicted OPC members, the OPC Chair calls for the voting.
  • The voting ballots are secret.
  • All non-conflicted OPC members have to cast their vote using one of the three options: Y[es]/N[o]/A[bstain].
  • The votes are digitally collected and recorded by OPO.
  • The results of the voting are presented to the OPC only once all the cases have been discussed and voted, and the OPC Chair declares the discussion completed.
  • A proposal is considered as recommended for approval to the Director General if the number of Y exceeds the number of N.
  • All proposals receiving a number of N equal or larger than the number of Y are rejected.
  • The vote is considered valid only if the number of Y+N votes is equal or larger than 2/3 of the number of non-conflicted OPC members.
  • If the 2/3 fraction of the number of non-conflicted OPC members is not round, the limit is rounded by defect to the closest integer.
  • If the 2/3 threshold is not reached, the vote is not valid. In this case the OPC chair calls for a further discussion and a new voting session takes place.
  • In case the 2/3 limit is not reached after the second voting round, the OPC members who abstained in the previous two sessions are forced to express their vote as Y or N and a third (and final) voting session takes place.

Detailed instructions for the usage of PEI by OPC members during the OPC meeting are provided here. Instructions for the OPC Chair are provided here.

Appendix G - Confidentiality agreement

This appendix contains a facsimile of the Confidentiality Agrement which is signed by all OPC and Panel member when they accept to serve.

 

Confidentiality Agreement

for the Members of the ESO Observing Programmes Committee (OPC) and its Experts Panels

 

In accordance with the Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure of the ESO Observing Programmes Committee (approved by ESO Council on 04.12.20131), I acknowledge that during the term of my membership I may be given or have access to confidential information which may be supplied in tangible form or verbally or by observing proposals and the respective discussions at OPC are considered Confidential Information, as they may contain unpublished research and/or proprietary information. I further acknowledge that the Confidential Information will be made available to me only for the purpose to

  • fulfil my duties as a member of the ESO OPC and its Experts Panels in accordance with the Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure of the ESO Observing Programmes Committee, ('the Permitted Purpose')

I AGREE:

  1. to use the Confidential Information only for the Permitted Purpose;
  2. to keep the Confidential Information secret and confidential and not to disclose it in any form to any third party (including to any persons or party at my employer, including research colleagues, graduate students, post-doctoral or research associates) without the prior written consent of ESO;
  3. on the written request of ESO to deliver to ESO any tangible items of Confidential Information in my possession;

I understand that this Confidentiality Agreement does not apply to any item of Confidential Information, which is disclosed to me by any third party without the breach of the present Confidentiality Agreement, or which comes into the public domain through no fault of mine, but that otherwise this Agreement will continue in force without limit of time. ESO may release me in writing from the Agreement.

I hereby confirm that I understood and will comply with the above confidentiality requirements.

Date

Signature

Back to the top

Last update: Fri Jul 12 10:42:01 CEST 2024