Home
トップページ
User Program
全国共同利用と日米協力
News & Calender
施設からのお知らせ
Neutron Science
中性子科学について
Neutron Science Lab.
中性子科学研究施設の紹介
トップ  >  For Users  >  全国共同利用中性子散乱課題申請  >  一般共同課題の審査のポイント

Review of General Proposal

Accepted proposal is deliberated on NSL operating committee through the following reviews:

  • Technical review, by IRT (Instrumentaion and Research Team) members, and
  • Scientific review, by two referees and commissioners assigned from its corresponding scientific-field,
  • comprehensive review, on NSPAC (Neutron Scatering Program Advisory Committee), and then concluded its acceptance or rejection.
 

Review Schedule

  • First announcement: mid. September.
  • Opening of acceptance: First of October.
  • Deadline: mid. November.
  • Technical review by IRT members and argument among them: first of December.
  • Assign of referees by each commissioner in its scientific field: mid. Dec..
  • Forwarding the proposal and its result of the technical review to scientific referees via internet.: end of Dec.
  • Assembling the judgement by scientific referees: first of January .
  • Comprehensive reviews on NSPAC and NSL operating committee: end of Jan.
  • Notification applicant of its acceptance or rejection: until end of March.
     

Reviewing item

The whole whole review consists of scientific and technical reviews. Applicant is required to prepare a proposal simple to understand.

Sceintific-review item

Two referees elected from its scientific field are review the following:

  1. Purpuse: What and how far is clarified? Whether the target is clear?
  2. Novelty and Originality: What is originality of the scientific viewpoint and experimental method?
  3. Scientific Background
    • In novel research direction, is the understanding of the scientific background sufficient?
    • In evolvement of neutron science from other probes, was the fruit of other experimental methods obtained sufficiently?
    • In succesive research as neutron science, have the publication and presentation been sufficiently performed?
  4. Significance: How does the expected result affect its scientific field?
 

Technical-review item

Each IRT leader and its members review, with checking the instrument environment and the feasibility, the following:

  1. Planning: Is the experimental plan appropriate?
  2. Feasibility: Is the experiment possible on its instrument?
  3. Necessity: What is the inevitability of using the beamline in JRR-3?
  4. Achievement: Have the sufficient publication and presentation ever been performed?
 

Back to the Application page.