Cycle 7 Supplemental Call

In Cycle 7, ALMA is offering an ACA stand-alone Supplemental Call for Proposals. Proposals can be submitted starting 3 September 2019 15:00 UT with a proposal deadline on 1 October 2019 15:00 UT. Since the Supplemental Call will follow the Main Call by five months, the Supplemental Call will maximize the scientific output of the ACA by allowing more timely science to be proposed. Proposals accepted in the Supplemental Call will be scheduled for observations between January 2020 and September 2020.

Capabilities and Time Available

The Supplemental Call is open to Regular Proposals (i.e., no Large Programs) without time constraints that propose to use standard observing modes, as allowed for ACA stand-alone proposals in the Main Call. Proposals may request to use the 7-­m array only or the 7­-m array plus Total Power array. It is anticipated that approximately 2500 hours on the 7-m array will be scheduled in the Supplemental Call. 

Anticipated Timeline (all dates subject to change) 

Prioritization

Proposals accepted in the Cycle 7 Supplemental Call will receive priority Grade “C” and will have lower observing priority than ACA proposals accepted in the Cycle 7 Main Call.

Peer Review Process

Proposals submitted in the Supplemental Call will be peer reviewed using a distributed system in which each proposal team selects a designated reviewer to participate in the review process. Each submitted proposal will be ranked by ten reviewers, and the final rank-ordered list of proposals will be determined by an average of the reviewer rankings. 

The review process is described in detail in the following web pages:

• Tools for the Supplemental Call Review Process
  

• How to use the Reviewer Tool

• Review Criteria

• Conflict Criteria

• Guidelines for Writing Comments to the PI

• Guidelines for Mentors

• Unconscious Bias

• Frequently Asked Questions

The basic rules for the review process are:

1. All participants in the review process are expected to behave in an ethical manner. If it is found that a reviewer has not behaved in an ethical manner, the proposal(s) associated with the reviewer may be rejected. 

2. Each proposal must designate one reviewer to participate in the review process. The designated reviewer may be the PI of the proposal or one of the co­-Is. 

3. The reviewer must be specified in the Observing Tool (OT) at the time of proposal submission and cannot be changed after the proposal deadline.

4. Reviewers must declare any major conflicts of interest of their assigned proposals. Any proposals with a major conflict of interest will be replaced by another proposal.

5. Each designated reviewer is responsible for writing comments and scientific ranks for ten proposals. If a person is the designated reviewer on multiple proposals, they will receive ten unique review assignments per submitted proposal. 

6. If a designated reviewer does not submit their reviews and ranks by the review deadline (November 12, 2019 15:00 UT), the proposal for which they were identified as the reviewer will be rejected.

7. All participants in the review process agree to keep the materials confidential and will not use the materials for any other means other than the proposal review. Participants will delete any proposals after they have completed their assessments.

8. PIs who do not have a PhD may be selected as the designated reviewer. In such cases, a mentor must be specified who will assist the PI in the review process. The mentor must have a PhD and be specified in the OT at the time of proposal submission.

Tools for Cycle 7 Supplemental Call

PIs need an up-­to-­date version of the Cycle 7 Observing Tool (the “OT”) to submit a proposal. Designated reviewers will need the Cycle 7 Supplemental Call Reviewer Tool. The tools and associated documentation are available here.