Proposal writing workshop

Tips from one of successful users(and some reviews point of view)

Tomoya Hirota(Mizusawa VLBI observatory, NAOJ/SOKENDAI)

Preface• Based on my proposals strongly biased to– High mass star-formation (Orion KL)– Chemistry– Masers, VLBI– Some collaborations (20/cycle)• Experiences of ARP member (category 3 in cycle 3, 4, 5)– Some comments based on reviews point of view
– But wait for Saito-san’s talk

• Not good at English, no illustrated presentation– Maybe make you misunderstood• Similar to or less experiences than some of you– Maybe make you boringMy proposal history• CONFIDENTIAL• Not always successful: 65% success rate
• Don’t trust me too much

Proposal weakness 1/4• No detailed comment on science (unlike review of papers)• Not very serious as they are all for successful proposals• Lack of broader context, uniqueness and/or generality– Connection between a broader context needs to be more clear– The relevance of this particular source in the context of high-massstar formation would strengthen the proposal– How unique or typical their target is, and how general theconclusions will be?
– Lacks a description on how observations have a broader impact onastrophysics

Proposal weakness 2/4• Not fatal, but need to be improved (red are for rejected one)
• Discussion on how to achieve science goals– How observations clarify the nature of other high-mass protostars?
– How initial questions will be addressed quantitatively?
– Simulations should be performed to demonstrate feasibility– No discussion of how physical properties could be derived– Not clear how new observations will clarify nature and mechanism

Primitive models/predictions used in the past proposals

Proposal weakness 3/4• Maybe declined by these comments (red are for rejected)• Insufficient discussion on capability/feasibility– Still limited by the phase scatter so the positional accuracy might beoverstated– Big jump in angular resolution w.r.t. previous observations– Not clear whether both bands 9 and 10 are needed– The need for high resolution observations is not well justified– Why didn't they request band 7 or 6 with higher resolution wherethe sensitivity would help?
– How much bandwidth is removed when line the forest is removed?

Proposal weakness 4/4• Maybe declined by these comments (red are for rejected)• Unclear science goals– Not explained why it could not be constrained using previous observations– Unclear whether some of the science goals could be met with the current
data– This proposal is presented as a mixture of two goals, making it somewhat
unfocussed.

• Lessons learned– Science goals must be clear and well focused– Capability/feasibility must be clearly justified– Importance from broader context (not too specific, not too unique) andmethod to achieve science goals would strengthen the cases

Positive comments 1/2• Unique/well-justified strategy– The source is very interesting and unique– Further frequencies requested will help to break the degeneracy– Allow the characterization with precision that has never before beenpossible– Justified why ALMA is the only instrument that can achieve theirscience goals– Included convincing discussion of the utility of non-detections– Timely proposal for cycle 0 --- H2O maser burst• Possibility of 13 years periodicity• ”Cannot wait until ALMA cycle 13!”
• Thanks to referees for understanding!

Positive comments 2/2• Combination with VLBI– The observations are coordinated with VLBI network in EA– There is considerable ancillary (VLBI and ALMA) data
– Well justified case and motivations from ALMA and other telescopes• Utilizing previous ALMA data
– Good progress with data received and justification for continuation– The analysis done on the SV data looks convincing– The proposal is well-written and builds well on previous data– Clearly justify the need for high angular resolution using ALMA data
– The (previous) results are good motivation for the small pilot study• All based on continuous publications from VERA and ALMA
– Hirota+2007, 2011, 2012, 2014ab, 2015, 2016ab, 2017, Kim+2008• Probably giving positive impression for reviewers• Probably making others hesitate to submit conflicting proposals

Practical issue• CONFIDENTIAL• Always with long(est) baseline at high(est) frequency– Byproducts; no need to check duplication!
– But high risk projects are still difficult to be completedHow to reduce risks in observations• Not necessary to get higher grade (rather disadvantage)– The goal is not to be accepted but to be observed– Sometimes filler is better for your science (in my experiences)• Not to be transferred to next cycle• Not to be fallen behind competitors– Lower frequency is much better than higher bands• Even in case of non-standard mode (e.g. polarization)• Reconsider whether you really need what you request– Some referees think ALMA would be better no matter how it can bedone by using other instruments, but . . .
– Can it be done by degrading request, or by using other telescopes?
• It will make your proposal stronger and more feasible with minimum
requirement

Imagine who is your reviewers• Neither always experts, nor interested in your sciences– Similar preparatory studies, targets, lines, goals, etc.
– How to be distinguished among many proposals?
– Should be unique, but not too much
– As simple as possible, never ask to read references• Sometimes expertise your sciences– Don’t give negative comments on previous works– Don’t insist your idea too much, proposal is not a paper– The goal is not to present your science but to get data
Cycle 0 H2O

El=2939 KFor experts, these are famous sources and excellent sciences. But how can you distinguish them if you are non- expert?

Summary• Not to become weak proposal,– Science goals must be clear and well focused– Capability/feasibility must be clearly justified– Importance from broader context and method to achieve science
goals would strengthen the cases• To get more chance for observations,– Consider how to reduce risk in observations (e.g. lower-frequency)– The goal is not to be accepted but to get data

• To give positive impression for reviewers,– Consider who will be your reviewer– The goal is not to present your science but to get data