The reviewers of proposals at the Advanced Light Source (ALS) are a vital part of the scientific community. They are held to the highest ethical standard and embody our mission and values. They are committed to the ethical, fair, and thorough evaluation process that is essential to maintaining the integrity and success of the ALS User Program.
This document outlines the principles and standards that govern the review process to ensure that all proposals are evaluated with integrity and professionalism, and to uphold the values of transparency, impartiality, and excellence.
- Remain impartial and minimize bias to the extent possible:
- Reviewers acknowledge the presence of personal biases and understand that they may have conscious and unconscious biases that might influence the proposal review process.
- Reviewers must evaluate proposals based on the merits of the project and do their best to minimize their personal biases in the evaluation process.
- Maintain confidentiality:
- Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the user proposals they review.
- Reviewers must not disclose any information or data from user proposals to unauthorized individuals or use it for personal gain.
- Declare conflicts of interest and recuse self from reviewing when necessary:
- Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may impact their ability to provide a fair and impartial review.
- Conflicts of interest may include personal relationships, financial interests, professional connections, and intellectual bias.
- Review proposals within area of expertise and competence:
- Reviewers must possess the necessary expertise and knowledge in the relevant field to provide insightful and meaningful assessments of the user proposals.
- If the proposal being evaluated is beyond the expertise of the reviewer, the reviewer will recuse themselves and select “not enough expertise” from the drop-down list on the proposal website.
- Maintain professionalism through every step of the review process:
- Reviewers should conduct themselves professionally, maintaining a respectful and courteous demeanor in all interactions related to the review process. This includes written feedback and any discussions held with ALS management or the review panel.
- Reviewers must not engage in any form of harassment, discrimination, or unprofessional behavior.
- Maintain high standard of ethics:
- Reviewers must ensure that the user proposals they review adhere to ethical guidelines and principles, upholding the ALS core values.
- If reviewers identify any ethical concerns or violations, they should report them to the proposal coordinator and/or the deputy for science.
- Be timely and responsive:
- Reviewers should promptly respond to invitations to review user proposals and meet the assigned deadlines.
- If reviewers are unable to complete the review within the given timeframe, they must inform the proposal coordinator as soon as possible.
- Provide respectful and constructive feedback:
- Reviewers must provide feedback for the proposal writers that justifies the assigned score and helps them write a better proposal in the future. Feedback to proposal writers must be specific, clear, and transparent. Written comments should be constructive and focus on enhancing the proposal’s strengths and addressing any weaknesses.
- Proposal Study Panel (PSP) member considerations:
- PSP members are expected to follow the same guidelines as other reviewers, and are held to high standards to ensure fairness in the review process.
- PSP members must manage potential conflicts of interest during the review process, ensuring that they do not influence other PSP members.
- PSP members are not allowed to participate in discussions, written or verbal, about their own proposals with other reviewers.
- PSP members must be respectful of other reviewers’ opinions, technical expertise, and professional judgements.
Adhering to these guidelines will help maintain the integrity, quality, and fairness of the research proposal review process.