Previous Article Next Article Table of Contents
KPNO Observing Proposals for Spring 1995:...(1Sep94) Part IV - Facts and Fiction About the TAC Process (from KPNO, NOAO Newsletter No. 39, 1 September 1994) The recent KPNO user survey included several questions about the telescope time allocation process. Responses to this section of the survey revealed, in some cases, significant misunderstandings about some aspects of the TAC process. This article is an attempt to clarify these issues. Membership Some respondents believed that the TACs are composed largely of KPNO scientific staff members. In fact the opposite is the case. Each TAC has only one member from the KPNO staff; the remaining members are all from outside institutions. Although the TAC Chair is filled by a KPNO staff member, the Chair is a non-voting position, and the Chair does not take part in the discussion of the proposals. The term of membership for all voting members is now 5 semesters, with only a minority of the membership changing at any one time in order to retain a "corporate memory" on the committee. Members are chosen primarily on the basis of their scientific expertise, but some familiarity with the KPNO facilities is also desirable. Nominations for replacement members are solicited from the TAC, members of the general astronomical community, and NOAO scientific staff. Candidates are selected by the TAC Chair in consultation with the NOAO and KPNO Directors. Considerable effort is made to balance the committee expertise in stellar, galactic and extragalactic astronomy. Planetary and solar system proposals are sent to two external referees as well as being reviewed by the committee. Process It is important to note that every proposal for every telescope is discussed in the TAC meetings. Before the TAC meetings grades are obtained from each TAC member for every proposal to be considered by that TAC. TAC members are then given the average initial grades for each proposal, but they are not given the individual grades submitted by other committee members. After each proposal is discussed, the committee is asked if any member wishes to change her or his grade in light of the discussion. If this occurs, a new average grade is calculated in real time for subsequent use. Because the 4-m and 2.1-m telescopes are the most heavily oversubscribed, every proposal for these telescopes is assigned a "lead reviewer". This person is a TAC member who is responsible for obtaining added background material about the proposal and who is charged with leading the discussion of the proposal during the meeting. The lead reviewer process not only provides focus and direction for the discussion; it also helps ensure that all the relevant issues concerning the proposal will be brought forward. It is likely that this process will be used for the WIYN telescope as well. After the proposals for a given telescope are discussed and any regrading is done, the TAC is then asked to recommend the number of nights a proposal should be given if it can be scheduled. This number is a recommendation only, and it may be modified as the schedule for that telescope is developed. Areas of Concern Historically, the TAC has focussed on a few major areas of concern, virtually independent of changes in committee membership. The first and foremost of these is, of course, scientific merit. Because the committee is rather small and must cover a wide range of astrophysical expertise, it is essential that proposals make very clear just what scientific questions will be addressed by the proposed observations. The committee often wishes to see these goals placed in a larger context; i.e., how these questions relate to major unresolved astrophysical questions. Vague generalities such as "increasing our understanding" are not sufficient; the committee looks for specific questions that will be unambiguously addressed by the observations. Another issue of concern is the description of a clear path from the taking of the data through the reduction and analysis that will permit answers to be obtained. Other questions that often arise are whether or not similar programs have been done or are being done elsewhere, and if previous observing programs have resulted in the data being published in a timely manner. Conflicts of Interest This is an extremely important and delicate issue, and great care is exercised to make the TAC discussions as fair and impartial as possible. Lead reviewers are not given proposals where any PI or Co-I is located at their home institution. TAC members are not permitted to grade proposals from their home institution or from any of their collaborators (and, obviously from themselves). TAC members are asked to leave the room during discussion of their proposals and proposals of their collaborators. These procedures are also followed if any TAC member has any other conflict of interest for any reason. We hope this description will help clarify the TAC process. The TAC procedures are continually being scrutinized and modified in an effort to provide the best system we can devise. We welcome any comments and suggestions you may have concerning the KPNO telescope time allocation process. David De Young
Previous Article Next Article Table of Contents