6.2 Selection Criteria

Evaluations of HST proposals are based on the following criteria.

Criteria for all Proposals

•	The scientific merit of the project and its potential contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

•	The proposed program’s importance to astronomy in general. This should be stated explicitly in the ‘Scientific Justification’ section of the proposal (see Section 9.1).

•	The extent to which the expertise of the proposers is sufficient to assure a thorough analysis of the data.

•	The evidence for a coordinated effort to maximize the scientific return from the program.

•	A demonstration of how the results will be made available to the astronomical community in the form of scientific or technical publications in a timely manner.

•	A demonstration of timely publication of the results of any previous HST programs.

Additional Criteria for all GO and SNAP Proposals

•

What is the rationale for selecting the type and number of targets? Reviewers will be instructed to recommend or reject proposals as they are and to refrain from orbit or object trimming. Therefore, it is very important to justify strongly both the selection and the number of targets in your proposal, as well as the number of orbits requested.

•	Why are the unique capabilities of HST required to achieve the science goals of the program? Evidence should be provided that the project cannot be accomplished with a reasonable use of ground-based telescopes (irrespective of their accessibility to the proposer).

•	Is there evidence that the project has already been pursued to the limits of ground-based and/or other space-based techniques?

•	What are the demands made on HST and STScI resources, including the requested number of orbits or targets, and the efficiency with which telescope time will be used?

•	Is the project technically feasible and what is the likelihood of success? Quantitative estimates of the expected results and the needed accuracy of the data must be provided.

Additional Criteria for Large GO Proposals, Treasury GO Proposals and Legacy AR Proposals

•	Is there a plan to assemble a coherent database that will be adequate for addressing all of the purposes of the program?

•	Will the work of the proposers be coordinated effectively, even though a large team may be required for proper analysis of the data?

•	Is there evidence that the observational database will be obtained in such a way that it will be useful also for purposes other than the immediate goals of the project?

Additional Criterion for SNAP Proposals

•	Willingness to waive part or all of the proprietary period. While this is not the primary criterion for acceptance or rejection, it can provide additional benefit to any proposal and will be weighed by the reviewers as such.

Additional Criterion for Calibration Proposals

•	What is the long-term potential for enabling new types of scientific investigation with HST and what is the importance of these investigations?

Additional Criteria for all Archival Research Proposals

•	What will be the improvement or addition of scientific knowledge with respect to the previous original use of the data? In particular, a strong justification must be given to reanalyze data if the new project has the same science goals as the original proposal.

•	What are the demands on STScI resources (including funding, technical assistance, feasibility of data requests, archiving and dissemination of products)?

•	Is there a well-developed analysis plan describing how the scientific objectives will be realized?

•	Does the proposal provide a justification for the requested funds?

Additional Criteria for Treasury GO and Legacy AR Proposals

•	What scientific investigations will be enabled by the data products, and what is their importance?

•	What plans are there for timely dissemination of the data products to the community?

Additional Criteria for Theory Proposals

•	What new types of investigations with HST or with data in the HST Data Archive will be enabled by the theoretical investigation, and what is their importance?

•	What plans are there for timely dissemination of theoretical results, and possibly software or tools, to the community?