2006 Proposal Reviews

To PI's on 2006 SCEC Proposals,

The final science plan for 2006 has been approved by the board and the
Center Director. The process and schedule of the reviews are outlined in
the note below.

I will begin notifying PI's of the results of the review process later
today.

Cheers,

John

2006 SCEC Proposal Review Process

The process to determine funding for 2006 began with discussions at the
SCEC annual meeting in Palm Springs in September, 2005. An RFP was
issued in October, 2005 and proposals were submitted in November, 2005.

Proposals were then sorted and sent out for review in December, 2005.

All proposals were independently reviewed by the Center Director Tom
Jordan and the Deputy Director Ralph Archuleta. Each proposal was also
independently reviewed by the chairs and/or co-chairs of three relevant
focus groups or disciplinary committees (primary, secondary, and
tertiary). Thus, there were five or more independent reviews. Reviewers
had to recuse themselves where conflicts of interest existed.

The SCEC Planning Committee (chaired by Ralph Archuleta) met on January
16-17 and spent 20+ hours over two days discussing every proposal. The
PC assigned a rating from 1-5 (1 being highest) to each proposal, based
on a combination of the reviews and the full panel discussion, and
recommended a funding level.

The Planning Committee's objective was to formulate a coherent
science/infrastructure program that was consistent with SCEC's basic
mission, contained a balanced budget and considered the Center's
short-term objectives, long-term goals, and institutional composition.
Proposals were evaluated according to the following criteria:

a. Scientific merit of the proposed research.
b. Competence and performance of the investigators, especially in
regard to past SCEC-sponsored research.
c. Priority of the proposed project for short-term SCEC objectives.
d. Promise of the proposed project for contributing to long-term
SCEC goals.
e. Commitment of the P.I. and institution to the SCEC mission.
f. Value of the proposed research relative to its cost.
g. The need to achieve a balanced budget while maintaining a
reasonable level of scientific continuity given very limited overall
center funding.

Thus, it is important to note that a proposal receiving a low rating, or
not receiving funding, does not necessarily imply a scientifically
inferior proposal. Rather, a proposal may have been downgraded based on
other criteria above.

The recommendations of the PC were reviewed by the SCEC Board of
Directors at a meeting on February 6-7. The board voted unanimously to
accept the recommendations of the PC, pending a final review of the
program by the Center Director. The director completed his review of the
program last week.

SCEC funding for 2006 is $3.722M. This is level funding from last year.
The board approved $280K for administration; $380K for the
communications, education, and outreach program; $150K for the annual
meeting, Advisory Council, Planning Committee, and Board activities; and
$142K for the information technology program. A director's discretionary
fund of $130K was funded. $2.64M was available to support science
proposals (total requested funding was $4.4M).