All proposals will be subject to a technical assessment prior to a scientific review conducted by a Time Allocation Committee constituted by members of the eligible user communities and supported by independent external expert evaluations. Additionally, the review process will be dual anonymous to ensure a fair and unbiased assessment of all proposals. For more information on how this will be carried out, please see the Dual-Anonymous Proposal Information page.
The LMT review process consists of four basic steps:
The scientific selection and time allocation criteria for approved scientific projects will be based on the potential of the proposals to satisfy some or all of the following goals:
Following the technical and scientific peer review, each user community committee will provide a unified, prioritized list of proposals covering all scientific areas and based primarily on their anticipated scientific impact.
Each of the user communities in the LMT Collaboration has a right to a share of the scientific observing time on the telescope. Refer to the current Call for Proposals for the percentage of observing time allocated to each user community.
Time allocation is completed as a consensus decision by the community and international review committees. This step involves taking the lists provided by each user community and reconciling any conflicts, including both direct scientific conflicts (e.g., the same set of observations are sought by different groups) as well as conflicts for access to specific LST ranges. The final result of this committee meeting will be a list of projects from each of the priority queues that are to be scheduled on the telescope.
The committee that does this work will have representatives of all user communities, in addition to the LMT Project Scientists. It is expected that the deliberations of the panel will be in accordance with the broad LMT goals and principles that guide the review process and based on mutual respect of the parties and the needs of their communities. In general, the resolution of conflicts could be achieved by encouraging collaborations or based on community needs identified during the Community Review and prioritization of proposals.
Each proposal review includes two summary evaluation scores: relative scientific ranking within the scientific subject panel and the scheduling priority grade. The scheduling priority grade is assigned based upon both the scientific ranking of your proposal and the amount of time available to your specific user community. The scheduling priority grades are as follows:
The full and proportionate allocation of observing time for the prioritized scientific projects from each user community will be flexibly scheduled during the observing season to maximize the efficiency of the overall scientific program and the telescope operation.
PIs will also receive written comments from the Scientific Review and Technical Review.
When the review of all proposals is completed, each Principal Investigator will receive via email a disposition letter with a detailed review and feedback on their proposal, and the final designation will be posted on Hedwig. The final rankings of the proposals will also be listed on the Results of the Previous Call page. Depending on the assigned priority and ranking of the proposal, the PI will be contacted before scheduling the scientific program on the LMT to prepare the required observing scripts.
Our user community and pool of reviewers is very small, so some standard rules for conflict of interest will be relaxed. Examples:
We ask reviewers to consider removing themselves from the panel when:
Before deliberation on each proposal, we request that the panel discuss possible conflicts of interest and bias.