Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents

Electronic Submission of Telescope Proposals (1Jun94)
(from KPNO, NOAO Newsletter No. 38, 1 June 1994)

This semester Kitt Peak encouraged the submission of observing
proposals via e-mail.  We had experimented with a LaTeX observing form
and electronic submission for the previous summer's "queue" program,
and this was clearly a highly desirable option to pursue for our normal
proposal sequence.  As described in the last Newsletter, we
"reinvented" the observing proposal form, keeping only the questions
pertinent to the TAC and internal technical reviews.  We obtained Chris
Biemesderfer's expertise in implementing the system.  We were prepared
for the usual bumps and start-up problems, but in fact the process
proceeded painlessly and smoothly.

To begin with, nearly everyone (95%) used the new, shorter LaTeX form,
either electronically or via paper.  All together we received 231
proposals for the fall 1994 semester.  This is about 30 proposals below
our usual average, but the removal of Hydra from the 4-m and the
unavailability of COB for the first half of the semester can easily
account for that - at least we don't think that anyone was so attached
to the old system (15 paper copies due by 5 pm) that they decided not
to apply for time!

Of the 231 proposals, 168 (73%) were submitted through e-mail.  Of
these, 53 (31%) included one or more figures.  Roughly 40% of the
previous semester's proposals contained figures, so we feel it fair to
say that electronic submission did not unduly discourage the inclusion
of figures.  Unsurprisingly, a large fraction (43%) of the proposals
were received on the last day, and about 25% of the e-mail submissions
arrived during the last night.  (We would like to thank those of you
who sent your proposals in early!)

This first venture at electronic submission went a lot more smoothly
and effortlessly than any of us expected.  Jeannette Barnes provided
the expert assistance needed to massage roughly 20 proposals, and to
provide answers for technical questions to people wishing to use the
new system.  Chris Biemesderfer's template and processing software
proved so robust that once we began the submission process (28 Febuary)
we never had to call on him for support.  Pat Patterson, Marlene
Saltzman, and Judy Prosser ran the system, handling numerous inquiries
from users, fixing proposals that needed a little help, and overseeing
the processing and printing of the proposals.

One of the more commonly occurring problems dealt with figures that had
not been submitted correctly.  The mechanism for electronic submission
of encapsulated PostScript files had to be followed exactly, and a
misplaced comma on the "subject" line was sufficient to require hand-
editing on our end, or resubmission of the EPS file by the author.  We
will make the system more robust on this end to handle common problems
such as this for the next time.

Most of the effort on this end, though, was spent in fixing about a
dozen proposals that did not print out reasonably.  We concluded that
these investigators had not tried to print the document themselves.
This time we "made it right" for these folk, but the responsibility
belongs to the proposer to submit proposals in the form they wish to
have reviewed by the TAC.  If one has problems, we are happy to help
before the deadline; otherwise, we still accept typed copies via
regular mail!

What would we change for next time? We are planning to make a few minor
changes to the form and submission process, but we found that this was
substantially easier on us than the old system.  We have identified
only a few improvements to make the system more bulletproof.  If you
have comments about the new submission process, please direct them to
kpnoprop-help@noao.edu.

Phil Massey, Jeannette Barnes, Pat Patterson

Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents