Advanced Photon Source

An Office of Science National User Facility

Review Criteria for General User Proposals

Criteria for reviewing general user proposals and for macromolecular crystallography general user proposals are shown in the two tables below.

Rating Criteria for General User Proposals (Other than Macromolecular Crystallography)

1 - Extraordinary

The proposal involves highly innovative research of great scientific or technological importance.Proposed research will significantly advance knowledge in a specific scientific discipline/field or create a new technological area. Considerable societal relevance is demonstrated. The radiation characteristics of the APS are highly desirable for the success of the proposed work.

2 - Excellent

The proposed research is of high quality and has potential for making an important contribution to a specific field, scientific discipline, or technical development project. The work is cutting edge and likely to be published in a leading scientific journal or lead to advances in a technological area. The radiation characteristics of the APS are important to the success of the proposed work.

3 - Good

The proposed research is near cutting-edge and likely to produce publishable results or incremental technological advances. Impact on a specific field, scientific discipline, or technological area is likely. Synchrotron radiation is essential to accomplish the intended goals of the research. The proposed work will greatly benefit from access to the APS.

4 - Fair

The proposed research is interesting by may not significantly impact a specific field, scientific discipline, or technological area. Publication may or may not result from this research. Synchrotron radiation is required, but the proposed work could be performed at other facilities.

5 - Poor

The proposed research is not well planned or is not feasible. Results would not make important contributions to fundamental or applied understanding, and work is not likely to result in publication. The need for synchrotron radiation is not clear

0 - No Review

The proposal provides insufficient information on which to base a review.

NOTE: The scores of unallocated proposals are "aged" or improved at each cycle as part of the allocation process. If a proposal was not allocated time in the previous cycle, its score is improved by 0.2. This is done a maximum of two times, for a maximum improvment of 0.4.

Rating Criteria for Macromolecular Crystallography Proposals
Quality of Research Impact of Research Need for Third-generation Synchrotron Potential for Publication
  • Highly innovative and of great scientific importance (1)
  • High quality and cutting edge (2)
  • Near cutting edge (3)
  • Interesting (4)
  • Not well-planned or not feasible (5)
  • Revolutionary (1)
  • Significant (2)
  • Important (3)
  • Minimal (4)
  • Insignificant (5)
  • Essential (1)
  • Highly desirable for success of experiment (2)
  • Beneficial (3)
  • Not required (4)
  • Need is not clear (5)
  • Very high in a leading scientific journal (1)
  • High in a leading scientific journal (2)
  • Strong in a non-leading scientific journal (3)
  • Likely (4)
  • Not likely (5)
NOTE: One rating is chosen in each column; the overall score is calculated based on the average of the four scores.

 

User Office Footer

To comment on the contents, please contact apsuser@aps.anl.gov.