Please read these guidelines carefully before submitting a proposal because they have changed!
Principal Investigator
The Principal Investigator (PI) is the person who owns the project and who has overall responsibility for the research group. This includes individuals who may be faculty members working with students/postdocs as well as researchers in industry and other laboratories who have the ultimate responsibility for a research group and projects.
Experiment Leader
The Experiment Leader is the researcher working under the PI who manages the experiments taking place on a beamline. This is typically the person completing the proposal form. The ALS encourages students/postdocs to gain experience in submitting proposals as the Experiment Leader.
Consolidation of Proposals
Similar or closely related proposals from the same group should be consolidated into a single, strong proposal. This often improves the merit and score of the resulting proposal. The Proposal Study Panel (PSP) and the ALS are aware when multiple proposals are submitted from a single group for the same science program and/or for use of the same beamline.
Beamline Choice
A proposal may request beamtime on up to three beamlines. Please only choose beamlines required to do the work described in your proposal. We will use the first beamline you choose to match your proposal with reviewers. If you need assistance choosing a beamline, please review the beamline techniques and parameters in the ALS Beamline Directory and contact the appropriate beamline scientist. You may also contact the User Services Office for assistance.
Writing the Scientific Case
Content to Include
- Title
- Abstract
- Description of scientific and technical impact
- Outline of proposed research plan
- Resource justification
- References
Length
Limit general user proposals to three pages using the provided template (below). Only three pages will be read by the review panel; any additional pages will be ignored. We suggest the following guidelines: Scientific and Technical Impact: 900 words, Research Plan: 450 words, Resource Justification: 150 words.
Molecular Foundry Requests
If you are planning to request time at the Molecular Foundry in your General User proposal, be prepared during proposal submission to provide a brief technical description of the work you wish to perform at each facility requested. Users are able to select up to two Molecular Foundry facilities. Please include enough detail so Foundry staff can evaluate feasibility (200–400 words as a guideline).
NEW CRITERIA for Evaluating the Scientific Case
Please use one of these templates for your proposal: Google Doc or MS Word.
Scientific and Technical Impact
Describe the scientific motivation behind your proposal and the potential impact to your field of study. Write a brief introduction that can be understood by non-experts to ensure that members of the Proposal Study Panels, who may not do research in your field, will understand the importance of your work. Clearly state the goals of your project and what the outcome could mean for your research field.
Reviewers will be evaluating proposals while keeping the following questions in mind:
- Will the proposed work significantly advance understanding or capabilities in the field of study?
- To what extent does the proposed work suggest and explore creative and original concepts?
Research Plan
Clearly outline the research plan needed to achieve your research goals. This plan may include details such as sample preparation, measurement type, time to complete the stages of the project, special considerations for handling complex samples, etc. Describe and justify the amount of beamtime needed to complete the proposal.
Reviewers will be evaluating proposals while keeping the following questions in mind:
- Is the project plan clearly described, well conceived, and organized?
- Will the results of this research plan allow the project goals to be achieved?
- Is the amount of beamtime requested reasonable?
Resource Justification
Describe and justify what resources will be required. Resources might include beamlines, endstations, sample holders, sample preparation facilities, computational tools, staff expertise, etc. We strongly recommend that the PI or Experiment Lead contact the beamline scientist (see the ALS Beamline Directory) to understand the availability and capability of any specialized equipment.
Reviewers will be evaluating proposals while keeping the following questions in mind:
- Is the request for ALS resources justified?
- Is this a good use of the beamline(s) or resource(s) requested?
Proposal reviewers must be committed to the ethical, fair, and thorough evaluation process that is essential to maintaining the integrity and success of the ALS User Program and follow ALS proposal reviewer guidance and requirements. They must also adhere to the ALS’s proposal review conflict of interest policy.