ALMA BOARD
ALMA EDM Document
Distribution

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
Ordinary Session

Subject: Updated ALMA Principles of the ALMA
Proposal Review Process
AUTHOR(S): J. Carpenter & Board Science Committee

Purpose of Document: To provide the ALMA Board and the communities with theupdated ALMA Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review Process to include joint
proposals

Status: Approved by the ALMA Board by written procedure on March 21st 2022

Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review
ProcessDoc #:Date:
Page:

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
2022-02-24
2 of 12

Principles of ALMA Proposal Review
Process
AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3[Previous approved version:
AEDM 2016-088-O]
APPROVED 2022-03-21

2

Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review
ProcessDoc #:Date:
Page:

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
2022-02-24
3 of 12

Change Record
V.

Date

1.0

2019-03-26

Affected
Section(s)
All

2.0

2019-09-24

All

3.0

2020-01-05

4.0

AuthorReason/Initiation/Remarks

Alejandra Voigt
Alejandra Voigt

First Version of the draft removing all aspects
related to face-to-face review and APRCFirst draft for John Carpenter

All

Various

Comments from Sean, Stuartt, John, and Liz

2020-01-15

All

John Carpenter

5.0

2020-01-30

All

John Carpenter

Revisions based comments from the Board
Science Committee
Minor revisions based on comments from IST

6.0

2020-02-27

Various

John Carpenter

Revisions made based on ASAC feedback

7.0

2020-03-09

Various

John Carpenter

8.0

2020-03-11

Various

John Carpenter

9.0

2020-3-23

Various

John Carpenter + BSC

10.0

2021-11-23

John Carpenter + BSC

11.0

2022-0216/24
2022-03-07

Sections 5
and 8
Sections 5
and 8
Sections 5
and 8

Revisions made based on comments from PHT
Lead and ISOpT
Changes made based on comments by the
ALMA Director
Changes made based on comments from theBoard Science Committee
Updated APRC and joint proposals

Alejandra Voigt

Revised version based on the Parties comments.

Alejandra Voigt

Revised version based on the DC comments.

12.0

3

Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review
Process
1

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 5
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 5
ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................... 6

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION............................................................................................................................... 6
2.1
2.2

3

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
2022-02-24
4 of 12INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

2

Doc #:Date:
Page:

DUPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
INVESTIGATOR TYPES............................................................................................................................................... 6

PROPOSAL TYPES AND SIZES ........................................................................................................................ 7
3.1
TYPES .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
3.1.1
Regular proposals ......................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2
Target of Opportunity (ToO) proposals ........................................................................................................ 7
3.1.3
Multi-cycle monitoring proposals................................................................................................................. 7
3.1.4
Director’s Discretionary Time (DDT) proposals ............................................................................................ 7
3.2
SIZES ................................................................................................................................................................... 84

MANAGEMENT AND TIMELINE FOR THE PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS ........................................................... 8

5

PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS........................................................................................................................ 8
5.1
5.2
5.3

6

SHARE OF OBSERVING TIME ........................................................................................................................10
6.1
6.2

7

THE EXECUTIVES AND CHILE ................................................................................................................................... 10
OPEN SKIES PROPOSALS......................................................................................................................................... 10

OBSERVING QUEUE AND NOTIFICATION TO PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS .......................................................11
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4

8

DISTRIBUTED PEER REVIEW....................................................................................................................................... 8
ALMA PROPOSAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (APRC) ......................................................................................................... 9
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................................................................... 9

BUILDING THE OBSERVING QUEUE ........................................................................................................................... 11
REPORTS TO THE PIS ............................................................................................................................................. 11
APPROVAL OF THE OBSERVING QUEUE ...................................................................................................................... 11
EXECUTION OF THE OBSERVING QUEUE ..................................................................................................................... 12

JOINT PROPOSALS.......................................................................................................................................12

4

Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review
Process

1

Introduction

1.1

Summary

Doc #:Date:
Page:

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
2022-02-24
5 of 12

ALMA uses a common proposal review process to assign the observing time of the ALMA Partners
and Chile1. The overarching goal of the review process is to produce a scientifically prioritized,
ranked list of proposals in a fair and impartial manner that will optimize the scientific impact of
ALMA. Proposal prioritization is according to scientific merit, while assuring each region receives
its share of observing time. ALMA is an international partnership and differences that may arise in
the ALMA proposal review process are resolved based on mutual respect among the ALMA Parties
and Chile.
The JAO, through the ALMA Regional Centers (ARCs), issues the Calls for Proposals. Projects
are added to the observing queue mainly through a main call that is issued once per year.
Supplemental calls may be offered as needed to solicit additional projects for configurations that were
not fully allocated in the main call. The ALMA Director may also allocate Director’s Discretionary
Time (DDT).
The ALMA Director is responsible to the Board for implementing the ALMA proposal review
process and determining which proposals are accepted into the observing queue. The implementationof the review process for the main call is described in the document “ALMA Cycle N Proposal
Review Process: Guidelines for Science Assessors” and the queue-building processes are describedin the document “Guidelines for building the Cycle N observing queue”, where “N” refers to thecurrent cycle. A description of the review processes for the supplemental calls is provided on the
ALMA Science Portal2, and that for DDT is described in Section 4.1.4. These documents are updated
each cycle as needed.

1.2

Scope

This document applies to all the documents related to the ALMA proposal review process and defines
the principles governing this process.

1.3

Applicable documents

The following documents are part of this document to the extent specified herein. If not explicitly
stated otherwise, the latest version of the document is valid.
Appl.
[AD01][AD02]

1.4

Document Title
ALMA Doc. Number
ALMA Trilateral Agreement – Agreement concerning the Operations of the ALMA by NSF, ESO and NINSALMA Management Agreement – Management Agreement concerning the Operations of the ALMA by AUI,
ESO and NAOJ

Reference documents

The following documents contain additional information and are referenced in this document.

The procedure for allocation of the Chilean time is governed by the agreement between the Chilean
astronomical community, represented by CONICYT and Universidad de Chile, and the Executives.
This agreement may be modified by mutual consent, in consultation with the Board and the ALMA
Director.
2 https://almascience.org
15

Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review
Process

Ref[RD01][RD02][RD03][RD04][RD05]

1.5

Document Title
ALMA Operations Management Plan
ALMA Cycle N Proposal Review process:Guidelines for Science Assessors
ALMA Cycle N Proposer’s Guide and Capabilities
ALMA Steady and Full Operations
Guidelines for building the Cycle N observing
queue

Doc #:Date:
Page:

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
2022-02-24
6 of 12

ALMA Doc. Number
ALMA-10.00.00.00.0034-A-GEN
Updated each cycle as needed
ALMA Science Portal (updated each cycle)
ALMA-00.00.00-0121-A-GEN
Updated each cycle as needed

Acronyms and definitions

All acronyms and abbreviations used within this document are given at the ALMA Acronym Finder
web page.

2

Proposal submission

Users must have registered in the User Portal before submitting a proposal. Proposal support isavailable through any one of the ARCs via the ALMA Helpdesk.
A proposal includes at a minimum: (a) a list of investigators, including regional affiliation andinstitution; (b) expected execution time and type of observations; (c) a scientific goal and justification;(d) the required angular resolution; (e) the required sensitivity; (f) the required frequency and spectral
resolution, if applicable; and (g) a list of targets.
A proposal must be submitted successfully before the relevant deadline to be considered in the review
process.

2.1

Duplications

ALMA time should not be used for repetition of observations without a compelling scientific reason,such as variability studies. The Call for Proposals shall contain clear definitions of what constitutes aduplicate observation. Proposers to the main and supplemental calls are not penalized for proposing
duplications of previous or ongoing Cycle observations if they had no way of knowing about thestatuses of those observations when the Call for Proposals is released. Duplication of observations
between proposals within the same cycle are handled as part of the proposal review process.

2.2

Investigator types

The following type of investigators may be specified in a proposal:• Principal Investigator (PI):PIs are responsible for the overall execution of the science program. Each proposal mustspecify a PI.
• co-Principal Investigator (co-PI):
The PI may optionally specify co-PIs, who assist the PI in leading the science program. The
regional affiliations of the co-PIs and PIs are used to determine which regions are charged theobserving time (see Section 6). The type of proposals that are eligible to include co-PIs is
indicated in the Call for Proposals.
• co-Investigator (co-I):
The PI may optionally specify one or more co-Is who assist the PI and co-PIs in executing thescience program.
6

Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review
Process3

Proposal types and sizes

3.1

Types

Doc #:Date:
Page:

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
2022-02-24
7 of 12

ALMA has different proposal types depending on the nature of the observations.

3.1.1 Regular proposals
Regular proposals deal with observations where the source targets can be fully specified at the timeof proposal submission. Regular proposals include proposals that require coordinated observations
between ALMA and other observatories, e.g., VLBI observations. Coordinated proposals acceptedby ALMA are contingent upon acceptance of the proposal by the participating observatories.

3.1.2 Target of Opportunity (ToO) proposals
Target of Opportunity proposals observe targets that can be anticipated but cannot be specified indetail, such as gamma-ray bursts, supernovae, and comets. While the target list may be left
unspecified, observing modes and sensitivity requirements are specified in the proposal. The proposal
must indicate what the trigger will be for the actual observation to be performed, the necessary
reaction time for scheduling the observation after the trigger occurs, and the number of triggers
needed to reach the science goals.

3.1.3 Multi-cycle monitoring proposals
Programs requiring long temporal baselines to study changes in one or more targets can submit a
proposal to carry out the observations over more than one cycle. Multi-cycle monitoring proposals
are for projects where the temporal baseline is required to optimize the scientific return of the project.
Examples include long-term monitoring of photometric variability and astrometric monitoring.
Proposals for multi-cycle monitoring observations should describe the entire required program andprovide a yearly breakdown of the requested observing time. Investigators with approved multi-cycle
monitoring observations need not submit continuation proposals in subsequent cycles. The ALMA
Director may limit the amount of time that can be allocated to multi-cycle monitoring programs.

3.1.4 Director’s Discretionary Time (DDT) proposals
The ALMA Director has the discretion to allocate up to 5% of the available time during a cycle. DDT
may be used to execute proposals submitted by the community or strategic projects initiated by the
ALMA Director.
DDT proposals may be submitted at any time during the on-going observing Cycle. DDT proposals
are approved for execution by the ALMA Director, considering the recommendations of a Standing
Review Committee. The Standing Review Committee has members from the JAO, appointed by the
ALMA Director, and the four regions, who are appointed by the Executive Directors and Chile. The
decision of a DDT Proposal should be communicated to the PI within three weeks of submission. In
exceptional cases, the ALMA Director may approve projects that would benefit from a very rapid
response. In this case, the ALMA Director will inform the Standing Committee and the JAO science
operations team of this decision within 24 hours.
The ALMA Director may use DDT to execute observing projects of a strategic nature for theobservatory and the scientific community. These include, but are not limited to, observations tomotivate interest in specific observing modes and timely observations that may yield high scientificimpact. The ALMA Director will solicit input on strategic initiatives from an advisory committee
7

Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review
ProcessDoc #:Date:
Page:

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
2022-02-24
8 of 12

formed by the Director. The observations for strategic DDT projects shall be announced to thecommunity before execution and the data will have no proprietary period.
The ALMA Director shall report on the use of DDT on an annual basis to the ALMA Board.

3.2

Sizes

ALMA aims to have a diverse scientific portfolio by executing a balance of programs with various
sizes in terms of observing time. Proposal sizes are classified as Small, Medium, or Large based on
the estimated amount of time in total needed to achieve the required sensitivity. The observing times
that define Small, Medium, and Large proposals are set by the ALMA Director based on the historical
proposal pressure and scientific considerations, and are published in the Calls for Proposals. Large
proposals may request that programs are executed over two or more cycles. Small and Medium
proposals are expected to be executed over one cycle unless otherwise specified in the Call for
Proposals.
The characteristics of each proposal size may vary, including the allowed length of the proposal text,
the observing modes that may be offered, and the proposal types that may be accepted. In addition,
accepted proposals may be required to deliver high-level archival data products. Currently, thisrequirement is anticipated only for Large proposals.

4

Management and Timeline for the Proposal Review Process

The ALMA proposal review process is led by the Proposal Handling Team (PHT) at the Joint ALMA
Observatory (JAO), under the supervision of the ALMA Director and the ALMA Observatory
Scientist. The ALMA Director shall determine the proposal review timeline, aiming to minimize
conflicts with other deadlines, traditional holiday periods in the ALMA Partner regions, and otherrelevant factors.

5

Proposal review process

Proposals from the main and supplemental calls are peer reviewed by members of the scientificcommunity. The ALMA Director determines the appropriate review process for small and medium
proposals, either distributed peer review, in which each proposal team designates one team member
to participate in the review, and the Proposal Review Committee (APRC), where the reviewers are
selected from the community by the JAO and meet to discuss the proposals. Large proposals arereviewed by the APRC.
The results from the review process will be assessed after each cycle for signs of bias. ALMA willtake steps as needed to reduce any biases and ensure a fair review. The basic procedures of the tworeview processes are provided below. The ALMA Director may modify the procedures as needed to
optimize the proposal review.

5.1

Distributed peer review

In the distributed peer review process, each PI designates one person from the proposal team to review
N proposals, where N is anticipated to be about 10. The reviewer is specified by the PI at the time ofproposal submission. The review process proceeds as follows:8Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review
ProcessDoc #:Date:
Page:

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
2022-02-24
9 of 12

1. The PHT at the JAO assigns N proposals to each designated reviewer. The JAO will avoid
major conflicts of interest in the review assignments.
2. The reviewer examines the assigned proposals and notifies the PHT of any conflicts of interest
not identified by the PHT. If the PHT accepts the identified conflict, the PHT assigns anotherproposal as a replacement.
3. Each reviewer orders the assigned proposals in terms of scientific merit on a unique scalefrom 1 to N and provides written comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal.
The PHT sends the individual comments from the reviewers to the PIs.
4. If the reviewer does not submit the orderings and the comments by the designated deadline,
the proposal in which this individual was identified as a reviewer will be declined unless there
are exceptional circumstances.
The PHT uses the individual proposal orderings from the reviewers to create a scientifically-ranked
list of proposals.

5.2

ALMA Proposal Review Committee (APRC)

The APRC consists of an appointed APRC Chair and invited members of community. The main goalof the APRC is to produce a scientifically ranked list of Large proposals and provide a
recommendation to the ALMA Director on which Large proposals should be scheduled, taking into
consideration primarily the scientific merit but also the balance of the overall science program.
The APRC is structured as follows:• The APRC Chair is appointed by the ALMA Director to ensure, on behalf of the community,that the panel review process is executed in a fair and transparent manner. The APRC Chairshould be a senior astronomer with cross-discipline expertise who is not a member of the
ALMA Board, a staff member of the JAO, or a staff member at an ALMA Regional Center(ARC).
• The remainder of the APRC is comprised of members of the scientific community, who will
be invited by the JAO to participate in the APRC based on their scientific expertise. The JAO
will have multiple reviewers for each scientific category, and will ensure that the APRC
collectively contains expertise to review all submitted Large proposals. The JAO will aim tohave the regional representation of the APRC to be approximately equal to the regional shareof time for the Executives and Chile.
The JAO may solicit additional reviews from members of the scientific community who will provide
additional expertise and viewpoints that will be considered by the APRC in their discussions. These
additional reviewers provide written scientific evaluations of the Large Programs, but do notparticipate in the APRC discussions.
Prior to the APRC meeting, all written science comments (together with technical comments fromthe JAO, when needed) for each proposal shall be filled in and made available to APRC members. In
the APRC meeting, a designated Primary assessor will lead the discussion of a given proposal. After
the APRC discussion, the Primary Assessor summarizes all scientific assessments, and technicalassessments where applicable, into a single consensus report which will be sent to the PI by the JAO.

5.3

Conflicts of Interest

Proposals are assigned to reviewers in a manner that will provide informed, unbiased assessments ofthe proposals. In general, a reviewer has a major conflict of interest when their personal research9Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review
ProcessDoc #:Date:
Page:

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
2022-02-24
10 of 12

would benefit if the proposal under review is accepted or rejected. Major conflicts of interest occur,for example, when:• The reviewer is a PI, co-PI, or co-I on the proposal.
• The reviewer is a very close collaborator of a PI or co-PI of a proposal.
• A reviewer is a close relative (i.e., immediate family member) of an investigator of a proposal.
• A reviewer considers that a major conflict exists with a proposal for some other reason.
The complete criteria for the conflicts of interests will be established by the PHT. While the PHT will
make every attempt to avoid conflicts of interest, inevitably some will remain. Reviewers are
responsible for identifying and declaring any major conflicts of interest not identified by the PHT.

6

Share of Observing Time

6.1

The Executives and Chile

The available ALMA observing time is divided among the Parties in proportion to their Shares ofContributions, and distributed equitably according to the seasons of the year, as explained in the
Trilateral Agreement [AD01]. Following the Agreements for Scientific Cooperation in Astronomical
Investigations between the Universidad de Chile and AUI and between the Universidad de Chile and
NAOJ; and the Agreement on Scientific Collaboration for Furthering Astronomical Investigations
between the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID) of the Republic of Chile and
AUI and ESO, Chile as host country receives 10% of the available time. In general, the three Parties
and Chile are treated identically, as four separate regions, for the purpose of time assignment.
The shares of the observing time among the three Parties and Chile are as follows:• 33.75% for the European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern
Hemisphere (ESO);• 33.75% for the National Science Foundation of the United States (NSF);• 22.5% for the National Institutes of Natural Sciences of Japan (NINS); and• 10% for Chilean time, which is administrated jointly by CONICYT and the Universidad deChile.
The method adopted to charge scheduled time to each of the four regions should be simple andtransparent with clearly stated guidelines. Time is assigned to each region in proportion to the numberof PIs (and co-PIs, if applicable) from each region3 listed on the proposal. PIs or co-PIs that have accessto ALMA through more than one region (e.g., due to a joint appointment at organizations in more than
one region or a member of an organization in Taiwan) shall select which region to which the timeshould be charged. The observing time for strategic DDT programs from the ALMA Director ischarged to all regions in proportion to their observing share.
A balancing of executed time to each region should be followed over two cycles (every two years)
and be reviewed by the Director’s Council and reported to the Board.

6.2

Open Skies proposals

Registered users of any nationality or affiliation may submit ALMA proposals. “Open Skies”
proposals have a PI or co-PIs whose affiliated organization belongs to none of the four regions.
3 In this context, a PI’s or co-PI’s region refers to the region to which the organization employing the

PI or co-PI belongs.
10

Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review
ProcessDoc #:Date:
Page:

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
2022-02-24
11 of 12Open Skies proposals are handled as follows:• Open Skies proposals are reviewed identically to all other proposals.
• The unaffiliated time attributable to PIs or co-PIs of Open Skies proposals scheduled arecharged to the three Parties and Chile according to the observing time shares defined in
Section 6, up to an amount of 5% of the total available ALMA time.
• Any Open Skies time that exceeds the above limit of 5% is charged to North America, which
follows current United States government policy.
• PIs of accepted Open Skies projects can select which ARC they wish to use for support.

7

Observing queue and notification to Principal Investigators

7.1

Building the observing queue

The JAO assigns grades to each proposal which reflect the priority in the observing queue. The grades
are assigned based primarily on the scientific rankings from the proposal review process, but also theamount of time assigned to each region, the proposal pressure in the various configurations, and thehistorical weather conditions.
Accepted proposals are nominally added to the queue for one cycle unless otherwise specified in theCall for Proposals. Large and Multi-cycle monitoring proposals are permitted to be in the queue formore than one cycle.
The ALMA proposal grading system has four categories:
1. Grade A: Highest priority proposals that, if necessary, can be carried forward one additional
cycle to complete.
2. Grade B: High priority proposals which are scheduled at a lower priority than Grade A
proposals.
3. Grade C: Scientifically fruitful proposals that are observed if a higher-grade proposal is
not available under the current conditions.
4. Grade U: Proposals that shall not be observed.
The anticipated time available in each observing cycle for the Grade A proposals is determined by
the JAO and made known in the Call for Proposals. In building the observing queue, Large proposals
can only be assigned Grade A. Accepted DDT proposals or projects will have top priority in thequeue unless otherwise determined by the ALMA Director.

7.2

Reports to the PIs

A report on the evaluation of each proposal is sent to the PI by the PHT.

7.3

Approval of the observing queue

For the main and supplemental calls, the ALMA Director sends the list of scheduled projects to the
Director’s Council and a representative of Chile for concurrence. This approved final list is thensubmitted to the observing queue.

11Principles of the ALMA Proposal Review
Process

7.4

Doc #:Date:
Page:

AEDM 2021-047-O_Rev.3
2022-02-24
12 of 12

Execution of the observing queue

The JAO executes the observing queue. The JAO also monitors and records the shares of observing
time charged to each region and regularly provides the relevant statistics to the Director’s Council,
Chile, and the ALMA Board.
If gaps develop in the observing queue, the ALMA Director may approve additional projects among
the submitted proposals in the current cycle, taking into account scientific ranks, regional shares, andscheduling constraints.
If the eligible PI projects cannot fill the available time and a supplemental call is not viable, the
ALMA Director may fill the time with observatory projects. These projects may not duplicate PI
projects. These projects will be awarded Grade C and the data will have no proprietary period. The
projects will be announced to the community before execution, and the time will be charged toward
all regions in proportion to their observing share. These proposals will not be charged against the 5%
allocation of DDT.

8

Joint Proposals

A Joint Proposal requests time on two or more separate observatories, but is submitted to a single
observatory for scientific peer review. Effectively, Joint Proposals allows for a single observatory toaward observing time on multiple telescopes. Joint Proposals submitted to ALMA will follow the
ALMA review process as described in this document, and will be subject to a technical assessmentby the other observatory. Joint Proposals submitted to another observatory will follow the scientificreview processes of that observatory, but are subject to a technical feasibility assessment by the JAO.
The selected joint proposals will follow thew approval process referred in article 7.3 above.
The ALMA Parties, based on advice from the ALMA Director, are responsible for approving Joint
Proposal agreements with partner observatories. Two-thirds majority of the Board, including theapproval of all the Members of the Board designated by the Parties to speak on their behalf, will
determine which observatories to establish agreements with, the duration of the agreement, and the
maximum amount of time that each observatory can access in the ALMA observing queue for a cycle.
The ALMA Director is responsible for establishing the implementation policies that optimize thescientific success of Joint Proposals in consultation with the ALMA Board .

12