Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| aaac:jul9 [2015/07/09 11:09] – prisca | aaac:jul9 [2015/07/09 14:47] (current) – prisca | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| * Need help from Ted interpreting his data. Can we ask for a bit more detail and report page references. | * Need help from Ted interpreting his data. Can we ask for a bit more detail and report page references. | ||
| * Comments from Todd {{: | * Comments from Todd {{: | ||
| + | * Comments from Paul {{: | ||
| | | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
| === Drill down and fill in the gaps on Agency Statistics === | === Drill down and fill in the gaps on Agency Statistics === | ||
| - | * Michael Cooke is adding new 2015 data to DOE Cosmic Frontier | + | * Michael Cooke added to the [[aaac: |
| - | * Prisca and Michael will continue to work together on pulling together the relevant data | + | * Prisca and Michael will continue to work together on pulling together the relevant data. I remind you that DOE provides a counter example to success rates - see spreadsheet at that link. Other Issues are |
| - | * NASA Linda, Hasan, Daniel are willing to help, but not a lot of time. What is the best use of their time? Can we get better/more merit data to fill in the gaps? | + | * demographic data (gender, race, age) is not requested (no database). |
| + | * data exists on whether it is a “new” proposals to the HEP program vs “renewal” | ||
| + | * successful awards have public information on the institution, | ||
| + | * they do NOT have number of PIs on a grant, total funding requested in the original proposal, breakdown of funding by frontier. | ||
| + | * Limited in how far back you can go: HEP began relying on the comparative review process for proposals submitted to the FY 2012 funding cycle. Some data exist from before 2012 but not as detailed and there are concerns about accuracy. | ||
| + | * Agency impact: The comparative review is an improvement over the previous mail-in-reviews only process. The outcomes that we viewed were fair. (comes from the COV) | ||
| + | * Agency impact: successful at getting reviewers, particularly new reviewers: 153 reviewers participated in the FY 2015 comparative review process, in which 687 reviews were completed with an average 4.9 reviews per proposal. | ||
| + | * NASA Linda, Hasan, Daniel are willing to help, but not a lot of time. What is the best use of their time? Can we get better/more merit data to fill in the gaps in years and for Astro Helio and Planetary separately? | ||
| * Helio and Planetary - need a point person who will consider what data already exists (see our long report) and what else we need. This data provides information on pre-proposal models - we need the latest data to update what we have. | * Helio and Planetary - need a point person who will consider what data already exists (see our long report) and what else we need. This data provides information on pre-proposal models - we need the latest data to update what we have. | ||
| * NSF is short-handed for this work, but can be tapped to mine the data if we have a very specific question to ask. I would suggest number of unique proposers per 2 years, 4 years, 5 years to complement already existing 1 year and 3 year. Can we fit for the number of repeat proposals? Can we get this data for other agencies? | * NSF is short-handed for this work, but can be tapped to mine the data if we have a very specific question to ask. I would suggest number of unique proposers per 2 years, 4 years, 5 years to complement already existing 1 year and 3 year. Can we fit for the number of repeat proposals? Can we get this data for other agencies? | ||
| * Put your ideas into [[aaac: | * Put your ideas into [[aaac: | ||