Avoiding Non-Compliant Dual Anonymous Proposals in Cycle 25 and Beyond

The Chandra peer review is a dual-anonymous format and proposers must anonymize the text of their Scientific Justification. Proposals that are not anonymized according to the criteria outlined in the Call for Proposals (Section 7.2) are subject to removal from the peer review for non-compliance.

This page is a non-exhaustive list of common examples of non-anonymized text in the scientific justification and technical feasibility text identified in Cycle 24 proposals. The examples do not come from real proposals but are representative of issues encountered in Cycle 24 proposals.

Violations of these types may result in the proposal's removal from peer review for non-compliance in Cycle 25 (and beyond):

1. Displaying the PI or Co-I names within text that is supposed to be anonymized
2. Using first-person point of view with references associated with the proposing team
3. Using parenthetical citations with author names
4. Directly naming the institution of a proposing team

Examples

1: Displaying the PI or Co-I names within text that is supposed to be anonymized

PI included with the title:

Observations of Exploding Planets Around G Dwarfs
PI: Rodolfo Montez Jr.

Proposing team member included within the text:

Incorrect:
"The results will be compared with theoretical simulations performed by Co-I Montez."

Correct:
"The results will be compared with theoretical simulations performed by the proposing team. "

2: Using first-person point of view with references associated with the proposing team

Incorrect:
"Based on our previous studies [2,3,9], we determined the optimal observing parameters..."

Correct:
"Based on previous studies [2,3,9], we determined the optimal observing parameters..."

Note: despite the fact that authors are using numbered references, phrases that directly associate the proposing team with any reference are non-compliant with the DAPR anonymizing criteria. These phrases should be anonymized to remove the direct association of these references with the proposing team.

3: Using parenthetical citations with author names (proposers must use numerical citations)

Incorrect:
"The grass is green (Montez et al. 2021)."

Correct:
"The grass is green [3]."

4: Directly naming the institution of a proposing team:

Incorrect:
"Based on the SAO overhead rate of...".

Correct:
"Based on the institutional overhead rate of...".

Be especially cautious in budget justifications for Archive and Theory proposals and/or when addressing an institution's computational resources; you may reveal this type of non-anonymized information in the Team Expertise document, but not in the Scientific Justification.