IRAM Program Committee recommendations

The IRAM program committee convened in Grenoble on April 4 - 5 to discuss the proposals submitted for the summer 2000 scheduling period. The committee was chaired by Darek Lis on April 4 (30m telescope proposals) and by Linda Tacconi on April 5 (PdB interferometer proposals).

30m telescope

100 proposals were received for the 30m telescope, requesting an unprecedented 4694 hours of telescope time, about 40% more than for preceding summer semesters.

Project	PI	Institute	Rate	Subj.	Contact	E-mail
K008	C.Carilli	NRAO	A	GAL	E.Dartois	dartois@iram.fr
K00f	L.Tacconi	MPE	A	GAL	A.Dutrey	dutrey@iram.fr
K015	E.Falgarone	ENS	B	MOL	L.Loinard	loinard@iram.fr
K004	M.Sempere	CSIC	B	GAL	R.Moreno	moreno@iram.fr
K017	R.Barvainis	NSF	B	GAL	H.Wiesemeyer	wiesemey@iram.fr

For the 30m telescope, the highest rating ``A'' was given to 34 proposals, 27 proposals were rated ``B'', i.e. were given backup status. The remaining proposals, although scientifically valuable in most cases, were rated ``C''. The individual ratings are listed in the attached table. All A proposals will be scheduled on the 30m telescope, although some with less time than requested. We expect that less than half of the B-rated programs will actually be scheduled. The selection will take into account scientific merit, crowding in certain right ascension ranges, and general aspects of balance. Proposals rated ``C'' will not get telescope time.

The principal investigators of each proposal will be informed by letter which will include comments issued by the committee if there are any.

A		B		C
Proposal No.
01-00	57-00	02-00	69-00	05-00	50-00
03-00	61-00	06-00	73-00	07-00	55-00
04-00	65-00	10-00	79-00	08-00	58-00
09-00	70-00	11-00	82-00	14-00	60-00
12-00	71-00	13-00	85-00	16-00	63-00
26-00	72-00	15-00	87-00	17-00	66-00
27-00	75-00	19-00	92-00	18-00	67-00
30-00	80-00	22-00	93-00	20-00	68-00
31-00	81-00	25-00	95-00	21-00	74-00
32-00	84-00	34-00		23-00	76-00
33-00	89-00	35-00		24-00	77-00
41-00	90-00	37-00		28-00	78-00
42-00	94-00	43-00		29-00	83-00
44-00	96-00	48-00		36-00	86-00
46-00	98-00	49-00		38-00	88-00
51-00		54-00		39-00	91-00
52-00		59-00		40-00	97-00
53-00		62-00		45-00	99-00
56-00		64-00		47-00	100-00

PdB interferometer

For the interferometer, the programs were classified A (accepted), B (backup), C (rejected) and D (deferred). Programs rated A will be scheduled in priority. Further time, if available, will go to the B programs following the same criteria as for the 30m telescope proposals. D programs have been considered as unfeasible during the summer period.

Note: As a consequence of manpower limitations and safety issues, projects for the coming season will be carried out with the Plateau de Bure interferometer on a best effort basis only. IRAM can therefore not guarantee to schedule all A-rated proposals. If a project is not scheduled before the end of the summer period, it will have to be resubmitted and it will be rated again together with any new programs that come in for the next season.

Project	Rate	Project	Rate	Project	Rate
K001	B	K002	C	K003	C
K004	B	K005	D	K006	C
K007	B	K008	A	K009	C
K00A	C	K00B	B	K00C	C
K00D	C	K00E	C	K00F	A
K010	C	K011	A$^\star$	K012	D
K013	A$^\dagger$	K014	B	K015	B$^\star$
K016	C	K017	B	K018	C
K019	B$^\star$	K01A	D	K01B	C
K01C	A$^\star$	K01D	C	K01E	A
K01F	C	K020	A$^\star$	K021	C
K022	B	K023	C	K024	A$^\star$

A: Accepted, B: Backup, C: Rejected, D: Deferred

$^\dagger$ program rated B in one or more parts.

$^\star$ program rated C in one or more parts.

Roberto NERI and Clemens THUM

Local contacts for the period May-Nov. 2000

Note that for resubmissions, the local contact has changed except when the project is already started or is a follow-up project.

Please contact your local contact as soon as possible to send him/her the setup of your project. The section ``Writing the setup of your observations'' (at http://iram.fr/PDBI/obs-setup.html) of the PdBI web page (http://iram.fr/PDBI/bure.html) provides the information needed to write the first iteration of your setup.

Anne DUTREY

Who needs a Fax ?

Since IRAM introduced electronic proposal submission more than a year ago, two proposal deadlines have passed. The fraction of 30m proposals submitted through the new web-based electronic facility was slightly more than 50% for the winter 99/00 deadline and 75% for the summer 2000 deadline. The acceptance of the electronic facility was even higher for the interferometer. The introduction of electronic proposal submission may therefore count as a success, particularly since all electronic proposal were handled correctly. No e-proposal was lost, even when proposals were arriving at a rate of one per minute shortly before the deadline (Fig. 1).

Not all is perfect though. Some proposals still do not have their figures incorporated in the .tex file. As the submission facility automatically creates the final postscript file from the submitted .tex file, the absence of figures is not noticed, unless they are explicitly incorporated. As an example, the following lines were used to incorporate Fig. 1 in this text:

\begin{figure}[t]
  \resizebox{\hsize}{!}
     {\rotatebox{270}
       {\includegraphics{histogram.eps}}}
  \caption[arrivals]{Number of electronic 
         proposals which arrived per hour 
          for the last proposal deadline. } 
  \label{f:arrivals}
\end{figure}

The submission facility allows to view the created final postscript file. Please use this viewing option to look at your proposal as it will be passed on to the program committee.

  

Figure 1: Number of electronic proposals which arrived per hour for the last proposal deadline.

As the vast majority of proposals now arrives to the program committee in laser printer quality, the few proposals which still arrive by fax are looked at with increasing suspicion. Please be aware that this mode of submission makes a proposal significantly less competitive: Typical grey scale plots transmitted by fax loose all definition, and are equivalent to subjecting the proposal reviewer to a Rorschach test. The outcome is predictable, and has already led to flat proposal rejections.

Reading faxed text is not necessarily simpler, or what are the proposal reviewers expected to think when they read about the source | | | | 7 | | ? Of course, with a little reading on, cross-checking, and lots of prior knowledge, the assessor finds out rapidly that HH7-11 is proposed to be observed. Not all assessors however enjoy these sportive aspects of their work, particularly if there are still 100 more proposals to be read.

In view of their poor legibility we therefore plan to discontinue the acceptance of faxed proposals. A questionnaire will be sent soon to the principal investigators of all proposals which were submitted by fax or normal mail for the last deadline. They will be invited to explain the reasons why electronic submission was not used, and to suggest improvements of the facility. If no strong reasons come up, fax submission will be discontinued in the near future.

Roberto NERI and Clemens THUM