User Guide | Applying for Beam Time
Proposal Scoring
General User Proposal Cutoff Scores and Beamline Subscription Rates
All NSLS-II proposals are scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the best. For proposals with multiple beamline requests, a separate score is generated by every PRP that reviews the proposal. Proposal scores from multiple PRPs are treated separately for allocation and not averaged. Hence, proposals may have more than one score.
Beam time is allocated based on the PRP's score compared to all other proposals for a given beamline in a given cycle. Proposals receiving a rating of 4.0 or greater are automatically expired and no beam time request may be submitted for that proposal in a future cycle. A score of 5.0 is used only for incomplete proposals.
Beginning in the Sept – Dec 2019 cycle (2019-3), NSLS-II proposal scores for each PRP are being normalized to a mean of 2.5 with a standard deviation of 0.5. This will be done every cycle going forward in order to keep proposal scores meaningful, i.e. by maintaining a broad score distribution. This procedure is also necessary in order to compare scores across PRPs, something that is now required by the multimodal (multiple-beamline) access.
General Rating Guidelines
The highest rated proposals represent groundbreaking research that could revolutionize critical knowledge in a specific field. High impact in the field would be almost certain. The experimental plan demonstrates optimal understanding of facility resources and is well-developed and highly likely to achieve the experimental goals. The proposed work will have broad societal impact in more than one area such areas as economic competitiveness, workforce development, education and outreach, and/or engagement promoting inclusive and equitable research.
These excellent proposals represent high quality research that could significantly advance knowledge in a specific field. High impact in the field would be likely. The experimental plan is well thought out and will likely achieve most experimental goals. The proposed work will have broad societal impact in an area such as economic competitiveness, workforce development, education and outreach, and/or engagement promoting inclusive and equitable research.
These proposals represent research that will likely produce incremental advances in an established area, leading to some impact in a specific field. The experimental plan would benefit from guidance from the facility staff but could achieve some experimental goals.
These proposals represent interesting research that may provide minimal new knowledge in a specific field and is unlikely to have significant impact. The experimental plan lacks critical details and may not produce any impactful results.
These proposals represent research that is unlikely to make any contributions to a specific field. The experimental plan may not be feasible.
*Please see the complete Proposal Review Panel scoring rubric (PDF) for more details.
Aging
If a proposal did not receive beam time previously, the score of the proposal is “aged” by 0.21 points during the allocation process. The proposal will remain aged until it either (1) receives beam time, or (2) expires. Once an aged proposal is allocated beam time, aging no longer applies for the remainder of the proposal’s lifetime. A proposal cannot be aged more than once. Please note: Aging does not represent a new proposal score; rather, it is a process to accommodate proposals that fall near the beamline’s cutoff score. Hence, the score reported in a proposal’s Summary tab in PASS will not change even when aging is applied at allocation.
Appeals
If a Principal Investigator (PI) on a proposal would like to appeal the reviews and/or score of a proposal, the PI should send an email to the NSLS-II Proposal Coordinator and include a point-by-point explanation for the appeal request. The appeal request is first evaluated for administrative errors. If none are found, the request is sent to the Proposal Review Panel Chair for further evaluation. The final decision on an appeal request is made by the Photon Division Director. Only the PI of a proposal may submit an appeal request. All appeal requests are due within 5 business days after receipt of allocation notification from the PASS system.
