Skip to main content

ALS

Home / ALS Proposal Guidelines

ALS Proposal Guidelines

Quick Navigation
Writing the Scientific Case
Scoring Rubric

Proposal Guidelines

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 the 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 (excluding references) using the provided template: Google Doc or MS Word. 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 it clear what work will be done at the ALS?

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:

  • Are the requested ALS resources justified?
  • Is the amount of beamtime requested reasonable to achieve the research goals?
  • Is this a good use of the beamline(s) or resource(s) requested?

Reviewers will use the following rubric to score proposals (with weighted scoring)

Scientific and Technical Impact (50%) Score
High impact 1 Exceptional Proposed work has potential to produce transformative results in the field of study. Highly innovative research.
High impact 2 Excellent Proposed work has potential for major advancement in field of study. Innovative research.
Medium impact 3 Good Proposed work has potential for moderate advancement in the field of study and is likely to produce useful results. Moderately innovative research.
Medium impact 4 Fair Proposed work has potential for minor advancement in the field of study. Routine study in a well-worked area of research.
Low impact 5 Poor Proposed work has no limit or no potential for advancement in field of study. Lacks innovation or creativity.
Research plan (35%) Score
High impact 1 Exceptional No flaws found in research plan.
High impact 2 Excellent Only minor flaws found in research plan.
Medium impact 3 Good Some weaknesses found in the research plan or approach.
Medium impact 4 Fair Significant flaws found in the research plan.
Low impact 5 Poor Several major flaws are identified in research plan.
Resource Justification (15%) Score
High impact 1 Exceptional Project goals can only be achieved using a light source. ALS resources and beamtime are appropriate to achieve research goals and are well justified.
High impact 2 Excellent Project goals can be achieved with requested resources and are well justified. ALS resources and requested beamtime are appropriate to achieve research goals.
Medium impact 3 Good Project goals might be achieved with requested resources and amount of beamtime might be necessary. ALS resources and/or beamtime required could be better justified.
Medium impact 4 Fair Project goals could easily be accomplished in a general laboratory. ALS resources and beamtime may not be necessary for the project. Resource justification is poor.
Low impact 5 Poor Project goals will not be met with requested resources. ALS resources and the amount of beamtime are not justified.

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.