Tips from the reviewers'
point of view (personal)
Masao Saito(NAOJ: TMT-J Project Office)Reference• Updated ALMA Principles of the ALMA Proposal ReviewProcess• https://almascience.nao.ac.jp/documents-and-tools/cycle5/almaproposal-review-process)• Userʼs Guide to the East Asian ALMA Regional Center (EAARC)• https://almascience.nao.ac.jp/documents-and-tools/cycle5/almaea-arcguide• ALMA Cycle 5: Selection Statistics• https://almascience.nao.ac.jp/news/documents-andtools/cycle5/alma-cycle5-stats
2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop2How to deliver message is 90 %.
• There is a book entitled “how to deliver
message is 90 %”.
• More than one million copies have been sold.
<= people want to deliver message to listeners,
but they sometimes do not correctly
understand.
2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

3How to deliver message is 90 %.
• There is a book entitled “how to deliver
message is 90 %.
• More than one million copies have been sold.
<= PIs want to deliver message to assessors,
but they sometimes do not correctly
understand.
2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

4Who are Science Assessors (reveiwers)?
• ALMA programs are selected through competitive peerreview.
• The reviewers consist of scientists selected from theinternational astronomical community.
• The reviewers are assigned to individual ALMA Review
Panels (ARPs) that are specialized in a scientific category.
• The ALMA Proposal Review Committee (APRC) consists ofthe chairs of each ARP and a Chair, who is selected from theinternational community by the ALMA Director.
2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

5

Science Merit• The primary criteria to rank all proposals are the overall
scientific merit of the proposed investigation and theirpotential contribution to the advancement of scientificknowledge.

2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

6

Who are Actual Science Assessors?
• The reviewers consist of scientists selected from theinternational astronomical community including EA (Japan,Korea, and Taiwan).
• They are not 100 % pure assessors. They have duty work,education, their own research, admin, and management.
They volunteer to review 80-100 proposals in a few weeks.
• The APR meeting is away from the first round. They have toremember the proposals in a short time.
• Past reviewersʼ name can be found in Cycle X statistic doc.
2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

7

ALMA Proposal Category
1. Cosmology and the high redshift universe
2. Galaxies and galactic nuclei
3. ISM, star formation and astrochemistry
4. Circumstellar disks, exoplanets and the solar system
5. Stellar evolution and the Sun

Sometimes a reviewer may have to read
proposals far from his/her specialty (e.gCategory 4 and 5)
2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

8Ideal Transfer Function

Ideas, importance, impact ….
Proposer

ScienceAssessor

Your interest
2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

9Realistic Transfer Function (Filter)
SA may receive skewed message through two filters.
Ideas, importance, impact ….
ProposerfilterStress, interest..

Background, interest

Refereeʼs focus

Your interest
2018/4/4

Science
Assessor

SAfilter

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

10Realistic Transfer Function (Filter)Cut unnecessary information
Ideas, importance, impact ….
ProposerfilterStress, interest..

Background, interestSAʼs focus

Your interest
2018/4/4

Science
Assessor

SAfilter

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

11Referees would like to know
• What is an unresolved issue in your field?
• Is it important or does it make a big impact in the field?
• Why has it not been addressed before?
• How will you address it with ALMA (in unique or originalways)?

2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

12Good example: Conflicting scenarios• Two contradict scenarios in your field• Each scenario expects different observation outcome ideallyquantitatively (supported by simulated observations)• ALMA capability enables one to separate onescenario from the other.

2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

13

Bad example: just do it• We have low resolution data.
• We need high spatial resolution.
• We can see something interesting.

Descriptive Proposals are usually
not highly rated
2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

14

Tips: Figure10”

2018/4/4

7 pc

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

15

Ask appropriate time if needed

2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

16

TIPS
• Prior to the meetings, all written science comments and grades will
have been filled in and made available to the panels.
• First stage: manage to pass the first-cut triage because no further
review is performed.
• Second stage: Expertsʼ comments (frequently Primary Assessor) are
well taken in the ARP meeting.
• You have to persuade non-experts in some sense as well as experts.

Worth asking your colleagues in different fields to read your proposals
in advance.

2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

17Summary• Understand review process• Your proposal should outstand among similar
proposals.
• Think about the science assessors who haveheavy load and may have different interest.
• Deliver a clear story to assessors.

2018/4/4

ALMA Cycle 6 Proposal Workshop

18