The combined process for Rapid Access Proposals, Industry, and Director’s Discretion (RAPIDD) beam time accommodates users who require limited or rapid access to ALS beam time. There are a number of proposal types that are available on a variety of beamlines, as described below.
Log in to ALSHub to submit a RAPIDD proposal. RAPIDD proposals can be submitted anytime the ALS is running normal user operations.
The RAPIDD process is not suitable for users requiring significant beam time for an extended program of research or those wanting to perform complex experiments involving set-up or reorganization of equipment at a beamline. Such users should apply for the General User Proposal six-month cycle. More information about user access can be found in the User Policy.
Please read this page carefully before submitting a proposal as we added new templates for the one-page scientific case and new scoring guidelines and a new rubric for reviewers.
Industry Proposals (IN)
The ALS has designed a process to better meet the needs of our industry users. This process can provide significantly faster review and access than the General User Proposal six-month cycle. Most ALS-run beamlines are available through this process.
You will be asked to attach a one-page scientific case pdf in the proposal submission form. Please use one of the following templates for the scientific case: IN Google Doc or IN MS Word.
The mechanism for review of industry proposals is decided by ALS management, appropriate to the proposal.
Please note: industry users doing structural biology should use Rapid Access (RA) RAPIDD proposals. (See below.)
Rapid Access Proposals (RA)
A proportion of beam time on some beamlines is reserved to provide rapid access for simple, sample characterization experiments. Only one rapid access proposal per group may be on the waiting list for a beamline at any time. The proposal submission process requires the following:
- Contact information
- One-page description of the scientific case (PDF file from template below, ready to upload)
- Brief answers to experiment detail and safety questions
- A check of all previous ALS publications submitted to the ALS database
Please use one of the following templates for the one-page scientific case:
- For Structural Biology beamlines (ALS-ENABLE, 2.0.1, 3.3.1, 4.2.2, 5.0.1/2/3, 8.2.1/2, 8.3.1, 12.3.1.2): use SB Google Doc or SB MS Word.
- For all other beamlines, use RA Google Doc or RA MS Word.
Depending on the beamline, there may be further limitations on the work that may be done or the type of access granted—please note these in the application process.
| Beamline | Technique | Type of access | Maximum shifts per proposal |
% of time reserved for rapid access |
| 2.0.1 | MX | Onsite or remote | 1 | 5 |
| 3.3.1 | Protein footprinting | Mail-in | 3 | 10 |
| 4.0.3.2 | MERLIN ARPES | Onsite or remote | 6 | 10 |
| 4.2.2 | MX MAD | Remote | 3 | 10 |
| 5.0.1 | MX fixed wavelength | Onsite, remote, or Collaborative Crystallography | 1 | 10 |
| 5.0.2 | MX MAD | Onsite, remote, or Collaborative Crystallography | 1 | 10 |
| 5.0.3 | MX fixed wavelength | Onsite, remote or Collaborative Crystallography | 1 | 10 |
| 7.0.2 | ARPES Spectromicroscopy (MAESTRO Beamline) | Onsite or remote | 6 | 15 |
| 7.3.3 | SAX, WAXS, GISAXS | Onsite or mail-in | 3 | 5 |
| 8.2.1 | MX MAD | Onsite, remote or Collaborative Crystallography | 1 | 10 |
| 8.2.2 | MX MAD | Onsite, remote or Collaborative Crystallography | 1 | 5 |
| 8.3.1 | MX MAD | Onsite or remote | 3 | 10 |
| 8.3.2 | Tomography | Onsite or remote | 3 | 10 |
| 10.0.1 | ARPES and spin-resolved ARPES | Onsite or remote | 6 | 10 |
| 12.2.1 | Small-molecule crystallography | Mail-in | 3 | 5 |
| 12.3.1.2 | Protein SAXS | Mail-in | 1 | 10 |
Rapid access proposals are peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers, and results are posted on ALSHub within three weeks. Proposals are added to a waiting list of proposals for the relevant beamline. Proposals are scheduled for beam time by beamline staff according to score and proposal submission date. Users should be prepared for beam time scheduling at short notice. Please note that allocation of beam time will depend on the number of proposals submitted, and so rapid access cannot be guaranteed.
Director’s Discretionary Beam Time (DD)
A very limited amount of beam time is reserved on some beamlines to accommodate urgent requests, exciting new ideas, or special circumstances. Structural biology beamlines are not available through this route.
Users need to contact the appropriate beamline scientist or the ALS Division Deputy for Science before applying for Director’s Discretionary beam time. It is expected that the same user group will not submit repeated proposals.
You will be asked to attach a one-page scientific case pdf in the proposal submission form. Please use one of the following templates for the scientific case: DD Google Doc or DD MS Word.
Director’s Discretionary proposals are peer-reviewed by ALS management.
Which RAPIDD proposal type should you choose when submitting a proposal?
NEW CRITERIA for Evaluating RAPIDD Proposals
Reviewers will be evaluating proposals while keeping the following questions in mind:
- Is there a clear scientific goal/question?
- Is there a well-developed experiment plan? What does the proposer expect to learn from the experiment(s)?
- Are the samples suitable for data collection and ready to go?
- RA/DD reviewers: Is the requested beamline appropriate and justified in the proposal? Is the amount of time needed appropriate? Is the need for rapid access stated clearly?
- SB reviewers: If the proposal is requesting SAXS, XFMS, or a tunable beamline, is the request justified?
Reviewers will use the following rubric to score proposals (with weighted scoring):
| Scientific question/goal of proposal (40%) | |||
| Score | RA/DD Proposals | SB Proposals | |
| 1 | Exceptional | Clear description of the scientific goal. Highly innovative research. | Clear description of the scientific goal. Highly innovative research. |
| 3 | Good | Description of the scientific goal needs improvement. Moderately innovative research. | Description of the scientific goal needs improvement. Moderately innovative research. |
| 5 | Poor | Lacks innovation or creativity, and/or the scientific goal is not described. | Lacks innovation or creativity, and/or the scientific goal is not described. |
| Research plan/Experiment Details (20%) | |||
| Score | RA/DD Proposals | SB Proposals | |
| 1 | Exceptional | Clear experimental details and expected outcomes. The choice of beamline and amount of time are explicitly justified for the RA/DD context. A light source is needed for the project. | Clear experimental details and expected outcomes. (If applicable, the need for SAXS, XFMS, or a tunable beamline is well-explained.) A light source is needed for the project. |
| 3 | Good | Some weaknesses found in the experiment plan and description of expected outcomes. | Some weaknesses found in the experiment plan and description of expected outcomes. |
| 5 | Poor | Neither the need for ALS resources nor the request for beamtime is justified. | The need for ALS resources is not justified. |
| Rapid readiness (40%) | |||
| Score | RA/DD Proposals | SB Proposals | |
| 1 | Exceptional | The need for rapid access is well-explained and is critical to the experiment. High-quality samples. | For MX, crystals are in hand and ready to go. For XFMS, samples are in an XFMS-compatible buffer. Samples described are of high-quality. |
| 3 | Good | Justification for rapid access needs improvement. Description of samples is incomplete. | Description of samples is incomplete. |
| 5 | Poor | Need for rapid access is not justified or is missing. Information about the status of the samples is missing. | Information about the status of the samples is missing or samples are not ready. |