Proposal Review & Ratings Process
Beam time at HFIR and SNS is made available to the international scientific community through the General User Program (GUP). Proposals from general users are submitted, reviewed, and allocated time through a web-based application (IPTS).
In rare cases, a Rapid Access proposal process may be considered.
Proposals are reviewed concurrently for scientific merit, safety, and feasibility. The principal investigator for each submitted proposal can expect to receive notification of review results within seven weeks of the proposal call closing date.
General User Program Proposal Ratings
|Extraordinary||5||The proposal involves cutting-edge research of great scientific importance. Proposed research will significantly advance knowledge in a specific field or scientific discipline. The characteristics of the SNS and/or HFIR are essential to the success of the proposed work. I believe this proposal must be supported with the highest priority.|
|Excellent||4||The proposed research is of high quality and has potential for making an important contribution to a specific field or scientific discipline. The work is innovative and is likely to be published in a leading scientific journal. The use of SNS and/or HFIR is highly desirable for the success of the proposed work. I strongly recommend that this proposal should be supported.|
|Good||3||The proposed research is inventive and likely to produce publishable results. Impact on a specific field or scientific discipline is likely. The proposed work will greatly benefit from access to the SNS and/or HFIR. This proposal should be supported if sufficient resources are available.|
|Fair||2||The proposed research is interesting but may not significantly impact a specific field or scientific discipline. Publication may or may not result from this research. Neutron scattering capability is required, but the proposed work could be performed at other facilities. This proposal should not be supported if the required resources are limited.|
|Poor||1||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. This proposal should not be supported.|