Linac Coherent Light Source

SLAC WEB PEOPLE LCLS

LCLS Proposal Management

Proposal Preparation | Proposal Review | Other LCLS Policies

LCLS is beginning its steady-state phase with operation at up to 120 Hz in a photon energy range from 500-10000 eV in the first harmonic. The pulse duration in standard operation is ~ 10 - 500 femtoseconds FWHM, the pulse energy is up to 5 mJ per pulse (corresponding to 3 * 10¹² photons @ 10 keV). All six instruments have been built and commissioned, and the user science program has begun. LCLS access and proposal review policies describe in detail the process that LCLS management uses to review, select and schedule experiments.

LCLS proposals can be submitted usually twice per year; the next due date is November 13, 2012.

There is no cost to submit proposals or conduct experiments at LCLS. However, experimenters are responsible for their own travel expenses and for the costs of non-standard chemicals and supplies purchased while at SLAC. Each proposal is for one specific experiment. Proposals can be re-submitted at each call, but this will not happen automatically and a re-submission will not receive preference during the review process. Follow-on proposals are also welcome, but they are not generated automatically and do not receive preferential review. There is no limit to the number of proposals that can be submitted by a scientist or team, but multiple similar proposals from the same team members may not be reviewed favorably by the Proposal Review Panel (PRP). Familiarize yourself with the proposal process, collect the required information, and submit early to avoid a last-minute crisis. The proposal deadline is strictly enforced: 4 PM Pacific Time.

Proposal Preparation Guidelines

The technical capabilities of the LCLS are still developing rapidly. LCLS operations will continue to evolve over the next few years, and we appreciate the flexibility of the user community as we work to accommodate developments, infrastructure improvements, and construction into our operations plan. LCLS provides updated information about instruments and operating parameters in calls for proposals and on the LCLS web site for the benefit of those preparing experiment proposals. Until we can reach a steady-state of operations, we will only be able to post the call for proposals and operating schedules 6-12 months in advance.

A call for proposals is generally made twice each year approximately 6 months before the run is scheduled to begin. In the call for proposals, we recommend that scientists describe well-posed experiments that can be accomplished in ~24-60 hours of beam time. Proposals must include brief discussions of the expected scientific or technological impact and anticipated feasibility and probability of success of experiments.

Proposals are written for a single run, but they may involve a much larger scope. All proposals, even these broader proposals that address important problems, must be resubmitted each cycle in order to be peer reviewed and considered for beam time. However, in the absence of sufficient information to evaluate progress (data disseminated from previous beam time, publications, etc.), the PRP may recommend or LCLS may decide that some proposal(s) be postponed for consideration until a future review cycle.

LCLS proposals are submitted through the User Portal

Provide a descriptive title of your proposed experiment that you would be willing to be made public if awarded beam time.

Provide an abstract that concisely (less than 1,950 characters) summarizes the proposed experiment, quantities to be measured, samples to be studied, expected scientific results and impact. The more detailed proposal text is limited to 6 pages in PDF format and should include the following information (include the spokesperson's name in the upper right hand corner of each page):

1. Experimental Team: In a table, list the names, institution, email address, and roles of each person who would participate in the proposed experiment (e.g., sample prep, theory, data collection, data analysis). This section could also briefly mention directly-relevant previous work done by the team members.
2. Scientific Case: Briefly explain the background and significance of your experiment. In particular, why is LCLS required for this experiment? Itemize the specific aims and particular questions you want to answer. Focus on the specific experiment and avoid broad discussions in general terms.
3. Experimental Procedure: Provide specific information so that the feasibility of this experiment at the requested LCLS instrument can be evaluated. Tell us if you plan or have carried out supporting experiments at other facilities. Have simulations of the experiment been performed? What are the anticipated data rates? Provide a beam time plan, indicating what could be accomplished in less than 1 week (approximately 60 hours of beam time). Describe any additional equipment you plan to bring to LCLS for the experiment. We strongly recommend that you contact LCLS instrument scientist(s) before proposal submission to discuss capabilities, to identify possible problems in integrating external equipment with the LCLS facility and to determine possible solutions. (See policy on endstations.)
4. Technical Feasibility: Proposals must contain sufficient information for the LCLS to review the proposal for technical feasibility. This information should include:
   • Equipment
     Which elements of the proposed instrument do you require for the proposal?
     What additional equipment is needed, including laser, detector, sample delivery/environment, temperature, pressure, etc?
     How do you plan to provide/organize the additional equipment?
   • Parameters
     Describe X-ray wavelength, pulse energy, bandwidth, beam size, repetition rate, pulse duration
     If laser is required, describe laser wavelength, pulse energy, bandwidth, beam size, repetition rate, pulse duration, timing, geometry.
   • Experimental protocol
     Describe the experimental geometry.
     Calculate the expected signal rate/background.
     Describe samples and concentrations, sample preparation and storage.
     Describe local facilities that may be required.
5. Progress Report: A 1-page progress report must be submitted to LCLS Proposal Administrator ([email protected]) for each proposal that has previously received LCLS beam time. Each progress report must include proposal number, date of experiment, instrument used, a brief summary of how experiment time was used, if experiment was successful, and how results were disseminated (list talks presented, papers in press or published, awards or special recognition). Proposals teams are encouraged to coordinate their progress reports so that only one report is submitted by the team and that appropriate updates are received by the LCLS Proposal Administrator before the next proposal submission deadline. Additional proposals will not be considered by the PRP if the progress reports for previous experiments have not been provided at least 1 week before the scheduled PRP meeting date. NOTE: User publications are extremely important in demonstrating the scientific impact of LCLS and are considered by the PRP in reviewing new proposals. Proposal teams must inform and acknowledge LCLS and the DOE Office of Science in presentations and publications using this template: "Portions of this research were carried out at the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. LCLS is an Office of Science User Facility operated for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science by Stanford University.
6. Addenda: The proposal team may submit addenda to their proposal (limited to one-half page) which briefly describes new information that becomes available after the proposal was submitted. The addenda must be consistent with the original scope of the proposal and must be sent to the Proposal Administrator at least one week before the scheduled Proposal Review Panel (PRP) meeting. LCLS management will determine if the supplemental information meets the criteria to forward such material to the PRP. Note that there is no longer any provision for additional supporting information. All information (e.g., graphics, instrument descriptions) needs to be contained within the 6 page limit.

* Safety related documents must be submitted during the safety management portion of the LCLS proposal submission process in the user portal. List and describe any safety concerns that may arise with samples you will examine, equipment you will use, or techniques you will perform (including any physical, chemical or biological hazards) and how these issues will be addressed in the experiment design.

Submit the proposal

Proposal Review Process

LCLS management works very closely with the LCLS Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), Proposal Review Panel (PRP) and the Users' Executive Committee (UEC) to develop a fair and transparent external peer review process. LCLS proposal review and ranking is carried out by the Proposal Review Panel (PRP), which includes ~ 70 international experts divided into several subpanels: Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Cluster Physics (AMO); Biology and Life Sciences (BIO); Chemistry and Materials-Soft Condensed Matter (CHEM/SCM); Materials-Hard Condense Matter (HCM); High Energy Density Science/Matter in Extreme Conditions (MEC); and Methods and Instrumentation (M&I;). A description of the proposal review process follows.

The proposal review process begins as soon as each call for proposals is closed, with an on-site PRP meeting at SLAC approximately two months after the proposal deadline. Concurrent with the PRP review, LCLS scientists conduct a technical feasibility review of submitted proposals. Proposals determined not to be feasible may be removed from further consideration before the PRP meets, and the proposal spokesperson will be informed.

Users indicate the appropriate PRP panel(s) to review their proposals when submitting proposals through the user portal. Proposals are briefly reviewed by LCLS and the PRP Chairs to confirm that the distribution of proposals is appropriate for the expertise of the PRP or to reassign these proposals to more appropriate subpanels to facilitate consistency in the review and ranking process. Once the subpanel assignments are confirmed, the PRP chairs assign 2-3 reviewers for each proposal assigned to their subpanel. Additional reviews may be requested from other panels if the area of science extends beyond the primary subpanel. If the PRP lacks the necessary expertise to review any proposal, subpanel chairs may request ad hoc external peer reviewers to supplement the PRP review. Each reviewer is asked to evaluate their assigned proposals using the following criteria:

• Scientific Impact: Does the proposal address a question that, if successfully answered by the proposed experiment, will have a strong impact on the scientific field or technological area addressed by the research?
• Originality/New Scientific Field: If successful, does the proposal open or stimulate research in a new field?
• Need for LCLS/Experimental Plans: To what extent is the LCLS critical for the success of this proposal? Can other techniques or facilities provide similar information about the scientific question?
• Scientific Risk: Evaluate the probability that the proposed research will yield significant new results.
• Prior Results: Evaluate success or progress of prior related experiments.

In time for the PRP meeting reviewers provide a written review for each assigned proposal summarizing their findings.

Subpanel chairs will assign a 'Lead Reviewer' for each proposal who will present the proposal during the subpanel deliberations. Within one week of the PRP meeting the subpanel chairs will provide comments for each criteria as well as general comments with sufficient detail to explain the ranking and assist the proposal teams to address any deficiencies and improve their proposals for a subsequent review cycle. LCLS might edit these comments for grammar and style only.

The PRP meetings will generally follow this outline:

The ranked list of proposals will be the guide for LCLS management to reward beam time. LCLS has the discretion to consider aspects beyond the strict ranking to make the final beam time allocation. Such consideration may include the increase of diversity, equalize access to new instruments, new emerging areas of science, funding restrictions and other aspects.

---

• LCLS Access Policy

• Guidelines for Guidelines for Collaboration, Publications and Press of LCLS Experiments