Dual-anonymous proposal review in ALMA Cycle 8
ALMA is strongly committed to ensure that the proposal review process is as fair andimpartial as possible. Analysis of the proposal rankings in previous cycles has
identified systematics that may signify the presence of biases in the review process(see Systematics in the ALMA Proposal Review Rankings). To reduce any biases asmuch as possible, ALMA will use a dual-anonymous proposal review process starting
in Cycle 8. In a dual-anonymous review, the proposal team does not know the identityof the reviewers and the reviewers do not know the identity of the proposal team.
While proposers will still enter their names and affiliations in the ALMA Observing
Tool (OT), this information will not appear on the proposal cover sheet, nor in thetools used by the reviewers. It is the responsibility of the proposers to ensure
anonymity is preserved when writing their proposals.
Guidelines are provided below on how to write proposals in an anonymous fashion.
Most of the changes are in the style. Proposers should remember to make the relevantchanges especially when resubmitting a proposal from a previous cycle.
General guidelines pertaining to all proposals• Do not identify the PI or any of the co-PIs or co-Is in the proposal. This includes,
but is not limited to, the abstract, figures, footnotes, and tables, as well as thetechnical justification.
• Proposers should use third person or neutral wording when referencing theirown work. For example, instead ofIn Smith et al. (2018), we demonstrated…
proposers can write
Smith et al. (2018) demonstrated…
• Do not refer to data from ALMA or other observatories in an identifying
fashion. If the data have not been published, it can be referenced by the projectcode. For example, instead of
Figure 1 shows the image from our Cycle 7 ALMA program(2019.1.02045.S, PI Smith).
proposers can write
Figure 1 shows the image from the Cycle 7 ALMA program
2019.1.02045.S.
• Software and datasets that are available in a public repository (e.g., GitHub) orin a public paper can be referenced per normal practices. If the software ordata are not public, it can be referenced as “obtained in privatecommunication” or similar language, but a name should not be specified since
it could strongly imply who may be an investigator on the proposal.
• Do not include references and links to papers in preparation or submitted thatare stored on personal web pages. References to submitted papers on publicarchives (e.g., arXiv) are acceptable.
• Do not include acknowledgements or the source of any grant funding.

•While proposers may note if they are resubmitting an ongoing Cycle 7
proposal, they should not indicate the proposal code and investigators of thepreviously accepted proposal. For example, instead ofThis is a resubmission of our ongoing Cycle 7 program 2019.1.02045.S(PI: Smith). Half of our targets have been observed and we areresubmitting the proposal to obtain the remaining half.
proposers can write
This is a resubmission of our ongoing Cycle 7 program. Half of ourtargets have been observed and we are resubmitting the proposal toobserve the remaining half.
Resubmissions that present unpublished data in a figure may reference theproject code using the example presented above.

Example text
Here is an example text that would need to be modified according to the guidelines,
with the text to be changed in bold:
We propose to perform a multi-band, beam-matched spectral scan of thecentral molecular zone of the nearby starburst galaxy NGC 253 in order toobtain the first template of extragalactic molecular complexity and calibrate
extragalactic molecular diagnostics. To sample a wide range of molecular
excitation states, we will scan the full ALMA bands 3, 4, 6, and 7. From ourprevious ALMA observations (Mangum+2015), we estimate that in band 6 and
7 we will obtain confusion limited spectra in most of the central region. Our
pioneering studies of multi-band spectral scans (e.g., Costagliola+2015)
show that the combined effect of more optically thin tracers and proper
treatment of molecular excitation can lead to a tenfold increase in thesensitivity of molecular diagnostics to the physical properties of the ISM.
Here is the same text revised according to the guidelines:
We propose to perform a multi-band, beam-matched spectral scan of thecentral molecular zone of the nearby starburst galaxy NGC 253 in order toobtain the first template of extragalactic molecular complexity and calibrate
extragalactic molecular diagnostics. To sample a wide range of molecular
excitation states, we will scan the full ALMA bands 3, 4, 6, and 7. Based on
previous ALMA observations (Mangum+2015), we estimate that in band 6 and7 we will obtain confusion limited spectra in most of the central region.
Previous studies with multi-band spectral scans (e.g., Costagliola+2015)
show that the combined effect of more optically thin tracers and proper
treatment of molecular excitation can lead to a tenfold increase in thesensitivity of molecular diagnostics to the physical properties of the ISM.

Guidelines pertaining only to Large Programs
Proposals for Large Programs will now consist of two parts.
1. The first part contains the scientific justification that must be preparedfollowing the dual-anonymous guidelines above. The scientific justification
should motivate the proposed science and observations, describe the data
products that will be delivered, and present the publication plan. The scientificjustification is allowed to be 6 pages maximum and is submitted in the usual
manner through the ALMA Observing Tool (OT).
2. The second part consists of a one-page statement that contains themanagement plan, the available computing resources, and an assessment of
the scheduling feasibility. This statement must be sent to the ALMA Proposal
Handling Team (pht@alma.cl) by email and received before the proposal
deadline, or the proposal will be rejected. Proposers can include names andaffiliations in this one-page document.
Large Programs will be assessed initially based on the scientific justification only.
After the scientific evaluation has been completed by the review panels and the ALMA
Proposal Review Committee (APRC, which is composed of the panel Chairs), the APRC
will review the management plans, computing resources, and scheduling feasibility.
The scheduling feasibility will be used to determine which proposals can fit into theobserving queue given the scientific rankings of the Large Programs and the timeavailable. After reviewing the management plans and computing resources, the APRC
may recommend to the ALMA Director that a proposal be rejected only if they feel theproposal team is not qualified to carry out the program or does not have the necessary
computing resources. However, the scientific rankings of the proposals will notchange. The ALMA Director will make the final decision on which proposals areaccepted.
Compliance
PIs are required to anonymize their proposals. PIs who do not anonymize their
proposals in accordance with the guidelines may have their proposal rejected. In
some cases, a proposal may be very specialized and the identity of the proposal team
may seem obvious to the reviewers even after the text is anonymized. As long as theguidelines to anonymize the proposals are followed, the proposal will not be
considered in violation.