1 / 8

TAC Report: Subaru UM 2008 Review Process and Statistics

This report provides an overview of the TAC review process and statistics for the Subaru UM 2008. It includes information on the current TAC members, the number of approved proposals, allocated nights, and competition rate. Referee comments and the selection process are also discussed.

rblauvelt
Download Presentation

TAC Report: Subaru UM 2008 Review Process and Statistics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TAC Report @ Subaru UM 2008 K. Shimasaku (chair) • TAC Members • Statistics • Review Process • 08B Schedule • Notice

  2. Current Members (5th generation) (綱吉) K. Shimasaku (Tokyo, chair) T. Onaka (Tokyo) M. Doi (Tokyo) H. Kawakita (Kyoto Sangyo) T. Kodama (NAOJ)* T. Shigeyama (Tokyo)* T. Totani (Kyoto) T. Nagata (Kyoto)* T. Murayama (Tohoku) * reappointed (再任)

  3. Statistics Number of approved proposals submitted approved ratio 10 8 6 ratio number 4 2 0 Competition decreasing, but still high (~3)

  4. Statistics Number of allocated nights requested allocated ratio 10 8 6 ratio 4 2 0 Competition rate ~ 4

  5. Comments from referees to TAC Referee A: I have read through the proposals. They range from very good to excellent. It is quite impressive. Congratulations to NAOJ for having such a competitive groups of users. Referee B: I found most of the proposals to be quite competitive and wish all but a few could be given time.

  6. Review Process 18 categories ⇒ 8 groups (each has ~20 proposals) A-1 : solar, extrasolar B-1 : star formation, ISM B-2 : normal stars B-3 : compact objects and SNe C-1 : galaxy clusters, GL, LSS, cosm.params C-2 : high-z C-3 : nearby galaxies, LG, MW, starburst, misc C-4 : AGN/QSO, QSO abs. 5 referees for each group (Japanese = 3) Selection - relative scores (from referees) + TAC review - consider min nights, continuation, … - challenging (thus low-score) proposals can survive Service Proposals Each proposal is reviewed by 3 TAC members • deviated scores • science impacts • requested nights • comments from SS

  7. 08B Call for Proposals (plan) Feb 8 announcement (tennet, web) Mar 7 normal/intensive submission deadline Apr 11 service submission deadline early June results sent to PIs

  8. Notice Change in category High-z Galaxies ⇒ High-z Galaxy Properties, Galaxy Formation MOIRCS mask number Describe # of masks in “11. Instrument Requirements” One proposal one chance Do not submit the same proposal to “Normal” and “Time Exchange” Common targets in normal and service proposals When submitting a normal and a service proposals and some targets are common, describe them in both proposals If you have any questions about instruments etc Please do not hesitate to contact the SS

More Related