Dual-Anonymous

 

1. How will reviewers identify conflicts of interest if they do not have access to the list of proposers?

Reviewers can provide a list of their conflicts of interest in their user preferences through the Science Portal. Reviewers will not be assigned proposals that involve a PI, co-PI, or co-I listed in their declared conflicts of interest. If a reviewer does not provide this information, potential collaborative conflicts will be identified based on their proposal submission history. Reviewers may also manually declare conflicts during the Stage 1 process, such as cases where the assigned proposal conflicts with their own. In these instances, the Proposal Handling Team (PHT) will replace the conflicted proposal with another proposal.

2. I would like to reference our previous ALMA proposal(s), because our new proposal is an extension of that previous work.  How can I reference proprietary ALMA data, or a previous incomplete ALMA project?

To properly reference proprietary ALMA data in an anonymized way, please use the phrase “obtained via private communication". Note that a name should not be specified since it could strongly imply who may be an investigator on the proposal. Further information and examples can be found in the dual-anonymous guidelines. 

3. How can I know if I am following the guidelines on anonymity?

Guidelines are given in the dual-anonymous guidelines. If you have questions about making your proposal fully anonymized according to the guidelines, you can contact your ALMA Regional Center (ARC) through the ALMA helpdesk . ARC support staff will be able to help answer your question, or they will forward your question to the Proposal Handling Team for additional assistance with the guidelines.

4. I’m an expert in a small, niche field, and many of the references relevant to my proposal are by members of our team.  Even if I follow all the guidelines to anonymize my proposal, I’m worried that my proposal may be identifiable.  Could my proposal still be disqualified?

Your proposal will not be disqualified as long as you have followed the dual-anonymous guidelines  to anonymize your proposal. The purpose of dual-anonymous is not to disregard your expertise or foundational work, but to guide the reviewer to focus and assess the science of a proposal. As long as the proposal is written in such a way that you do not explicitly identify yourself or your team, your proposal will be in compliance.

5. How do I show that I’m an expert equipped to work with the data, without revealing myself?

Your description of the scientific background, motivation, planned observations, and Technical Justification should express a level of expertise sufficient to convince the reviewers or panel, without needing to identify yourself personally.

 

Distributed peer review

6. What is the expertise level of the reviewers?

A proposal may be reviewed by any reviewer within the relevant science category. As a result, the Scientific Justification should be written for a well-informed but broad-based audience, ensuring that the content is accessible to reviewers with varied expertise within that category.

7. What is the role of a mentor?

A mentor provides guidance to a student reviewer throughout the review process. This includes advising the student on the scientific merit of the proposals and assisting them in writing comments to the PI. The mentor is required to adhere to the same confidentiality standards as the student reviewer.

For more information about the role of a mentor please check the Role of Mentors for non-PhD Reviewers.

8. Can a reviewer split the workload with other co-investigators?

No. A reviewer is responsible for reviewing all proposals within their assigned Proposal Set. The review must be carried out by the same person to ensures consistent and uniform scientific evaluation.

9. If I declare a conflict of interest with one of my assignments, how long should it take to receive a new assignment in its place?

During the first week of the process, the Proposal Handling Team (PHT) will collect conflict declarations from all reviewers and perform one batch reassignment at the end of that period. The quality of the reassignments improves as more assignments become available, which is why the aim is to do this first reassignment all at once. Reviewers will not receive any replacement assignments until this first batch reassignment has been performed. After the first week, as reviewers assess their conflicts on the new assignments, smaller batch reassignments will be performed more often. It may take less than one working day and as long as a few working days to receive a replacement assignment in these cases. While the reassignments are in progress, you can start to review those proposals for which you are not conflicted.

10. What should I do if I identify a new conflict of interest after I already declared them? 

If a designated reviewer realizes they have a conflict on a proposal after submitting their conflict decisions, they should contact the Proposal Handling Team by opening an ALMA helpdesk ticket to the department called "Proposal Review Support".

11. How much time does it take to review a Proposal Set?

Reviewing a Proposal Set takes time:

• The reviewer must first review all assignments to identify any potential conflicts of interest.
• Then, the reviewer must read each proposal carefully, prepare the comment to the PI, and rank the proposals in the Proposal Set.
• Once all proposals are reviewed and ranked, it is recommended to revisit the comments and rankings to make any necessary adjustments,

Therefore, it is essential that reviewers allocate sufficient time to complete the review thoroughly. Reviewers can anticipate spending two to three days reviewing a single Proposal Set. It is highly recommended for reviewers to start the review process soon after they receive their Proposal Sets

12. As a PI, is there anything else I should keep in mind when submitting my proposal?

PIs should ensure the designated reviewer updates their ALMA user preferences  through the ALMA Science Portal. The following information is critical for the review process.

• Email address

The Proposal Handling Team communicates with reviewers using the email provided in the ALMA Science Portal. An outdated email address can lead to missed notifications.

• Field of expertise

Updating the field of expertise ensures reviewers are assigned proposals that align with their knowledge and expertise, improving the quality of reviews.

• Conflicts of interests

Declaring conflicts of interest is vital for fairness, as it prevents proposals with potential conflicts from being assigned to the reviewer.

Regularly updating this information supports an efficient, fair, and high-quality review process.

13. What browsers are supported for the Reviewer Tool used in distributed peer review?

The Reviewer Tool works well with Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. If you have a technical issue while running the Reviewer Tool, please try reloading the browser and/or try a different browser. If these workarounds do not solve your problem, please contact the Proposal Handling Team by opening an ALMA helpdesk ticket to the department called "Proposal Review Support". 

---

Return to the main ALMA Proposal Review page