New experiments receive scientific and preliminary technical feasibility/safety review prior to being accepted for scheduling.
The Scientific Program Director determines the scientific review process. At the conclusion of the scientific review, the Scientific Program Director sends his/her recommendation for approval and the approval conditions to the Facility Manager. (See below for more details)
The Technical Feasibility and Safety review also sends recommendations to the Facility Manager.
The Facility Manager will then approve (or otherwise) the proposal and assign an experiment or test-beam number. Approval at this stage acknowledges that there is likely insufficient technical information to enable an unqualified approval to operate, but that there do not appear to be any significant issues that would prevent execution of the work at the Test Facility. Usually at this stage, a tentative schedule of onsite activities will be developed, contingent upon further evolution of the proposal. This evolution is enabled through working tightly with facility staff to develop the necessary hardware and procedures and complete the full safety review. (For this process, please see this page on Experiment Review & Safety).
Peer review is an essential element in ensuring that experimental facilities are utilized for the highest quality science and that the allocation of this scarce resource is fair and transparent.
The presentation at the Program Advisory Committee meeting is the primary opportunity to convey the scientific merit of the proposed work. The 2-5 page written proposal is utilized to match to appropriate reviewers on the committee and external advisors as needed.
The full charge may be found here (link).
Technical Feasibility Review
The Facility Manager, Area Manager, Safety Coordinator and/or User Coordinator review the proposal to determine if the proposed experiment can be reasonably and safely accommodated in the facility.
Appeals must be received within 30 days of the review/rating notification. Appeals should be addressed to the FACET Research Administration Manager. The only accepted grounds for appeal are in cases when the remarks supplied by the PAC are not a sufficient explanation of the rating or when unanticipated experimental results or new instrumentation has been developed since the initial proposal was submitted which would significantly impact peer review.
Staying in Touch
You can sign up for our mailing list to receive calls for proposals and announcements of meetings. To subscribe, send an email to email@example.com. The subject doesn't matter, but the text should say subscribe facet-interest.