Tips When Writing Proposals 	
Masatoshi Ohishi (NAOJ)
masatoshi.ohishi@nao.ac.jp	

Why I am here ?
An ARP member during cycles 3 and 4;	

An ARP chair during cycles 3 and 4;	

2016/12/20

ALMA/45m/ASTE Users Meeting20162

In my case	• Cycle 3
grade U

• Cycle 4– improved my proposal
by considering thereviewers’ points– Scientific contents arealmost unchanged	

Grade A !	

ALMA Proposal Review Process
Submission	
Allocation to a Panel	Stage1: Panel reviewers provide scores	
grade U	Stage1: Triage	~3x of available 12m time of each share	Stage2: f2f meeting	Stage2: vote	Stage2: final ranking	
APRC recommends to JAO	
2016/12/20

ALMA/45m/ASTE Users Meeting2016

grades A/B/C/O/I/U	
4

Proposal Review	• Assessment criteria–Overall scientific merit of the
proposed investigation–Potential contribution to theadvancement of scientificknowledge	

Is A Reviewer Expert ?	
• YES– Each ARP is composed of 8 Science
Assessors whose combined expertise covers
the range of topics relevant to one of the fivescientific categories.

• NO– Some assessors in a panel may sometimes
be relatively novice to some range of topics ofproposals allocated to the panel.

Why ? à Justify them (1)	• How reviewers assess: e.g.,– Why is this science theme important foradvancing astronomy ? Is its scientificbackground well and sufficiently described ?
– Why are the proposed objects most suited inachieving the scientific goals ? Is the numberof sources justified to be appropriate, not too
many or not too few ?
– Why is the spatial resolution chosen mostappropriate ?	

Why ? à Justify them (2)	• How reviewers assess: e.g.,– Why is the sensitivity chosen mostappropriate in achieving the goals ?
– Why is the frequency / the band / frequency
resolution / molecular lines chosen mostappropriate ?
– Why are the spws needed and mostappropriate ?
– Why is ALMA really needed ?
– … Why, Why, Why ?	

Make Reviewers Convinced !	
• “Justification”
The action of showing
something to be right orreasonable
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/justification

Justification (1)	• To show evidence, reasoning, rationales– Research background and motivation/issues
to be resolved for advancing astronomy;– If the proposal is based on proposers’ past
research, show clearly what were obtained
and what issues remained unresolved;– Methodology in resolving the issues;– Which information should be obtained inachieving the goals;

Justification (2)	• To show evidence, reasoning, rationales– Data analysis plan;– Demonstrate that your group has sufficientexperience and skills to conduct the proposal;– Demonstrate it is possible to advanceastronomy even if negative results wereobtained;– Show clearly it is impossible to resolve theissues without ALMA;–…

EA vs other regions	• NA and EU astronomers are used to justify
why and what they want to conduct.
• EA astronomers tend to emphasize what
they want to conduct with less “why”.
• Cycle 3: NA and EU had much higher
assessment results than EA• Cycle 4: EA have caught up greatly !
• Cycle 5 ?	
2016/12/20

ALMA/45m/ASTE Users Meeting
201612

Be kind to Reviewers	
• Reviewers have to read at least 100
proposals in two weeks or so !!
• Proposals should have clear structure– Concise & minimal information, but sufficientjustification– Be logical and show sufficient evidence an/orrationales– Use of “heading”s would help a lot2016/12/20

ALMA/45m/ASTE Users Meeting201614

English writing ?	
• Poor English writingà hard to read for reviewers, which would
give bad impression à lower score• It is advised not translate from your motherlanguage to English; it is better to draft
English text from the first drafting.
• Simple but logical sentences would be OK.
• Improve the text several times.

Duplication	
• Check duplication prior to submission– Definition of “duplication” is provided in “Users
Policies”: a factor of 2 -- field location, angularresolution, spectral windows– Visit ALMA archival system for checking
duplications– Jusfity that it is needed to observe even if
duplication conditions are met, otherwise theproposal may be descoped.

May Consider RA Distribution	

Technical Feasibility	
• Checked by JAO staff for all stage 2proposals.
• If a proposal is found infeasible, a label “I”
will be given.
• Science assessment will be done byreviewers, however, “I” proposals might bedescoped by JAO.
• Consult with the “Technical Handbook”
before submission.

Good Luck !	
2016/12/20

ALMA/45m/ASTE Users Meeting
201619