Review Refereeing Capabilities / Complete MR

NRAO Interactive Services Modification Request 6C2n308, June 2008

1. Introduction

Why do we need this?

2. Background

Why do we care? What situation came up that let us know we had to do this? What other systems/people will we impact here?

3. Requirements

  • From Socorro (Mark C.)

Very recently, the capability to assign referee groups to each proposal has been added to the PST. This is the first step in referee processing of the proposals. After the deadline has passed, an NRAO member or designate of the Proposal Selection Committee (currently Claussen and Wrobel, for the VLA/VLBA/HSA) assign referee groups to each proposal through the tool.

The next step will be to introduce a new class of user: the referee (or reviewer) into the PST. A connection must be made between the referee groups and the referees, i.e. each referee group is comprised of some number of referees. (Referees may belong to more than one referee group.) Each reviewer (we have some 60 different people for the VLA/VLBA/HSA alone; probably 20 or more additionally for the GBT) should be able to log on to the tool and read or print the proposals he or she is reviewing, for each deadline. A referee must be able to see only the proposals she is reviewing. In addition, the tool should allow the reviewer to give a grade to each proposal and to enter comments, both those to be seen by the proposer and those to be read only by the proposal selection committee (PSC). The grade and the comments need to be stored in the database, for further processing. Even if the proposal review process changes from what it is today, there will be some reviewer that needs to read and grade the proposals.

Each reviewer will get a signal (likely via email) that the proposals have been sorted and are available for review. A referee may then log into the tool at their leisure (until the review deadline), read, grade, and comment on his assigned proposals. When finished with the reviews, the capability will exist to notify the PSC (Lori, for example) that the referee has completed her reviews (this could be done directly from the PST).

  • From Green Bank (Carl B.)

See attachment: Green_Bank_Proposal_Processing.doc

4. Design

Technical lead should provide a brief description of how this will be implemented in the code.

5. Deployment Checklist

Documentation? Systems/hardware/networking things needed for deployment?

6. Test Plan

6.1 Internal Testing

6.2 Sponsor Testing

6.3 Integration/Regression Tests


APPROVED: I acknowledge that my request is fully contained in this MR, and if the Open Sky (or other NIS or PST developers) deliver exactly what I specified, I will be happy.

ACCEPTED: I acknowledge that I have validated the completed code according to the acceptance tests, and I am happy with the results.

Written - - - - -
Checked - - - - -
Approved by Scientific Sponsor - - - - -
Accepted/Delivered by Sponsor - - - - -

  • Use %X% if MR is not complete (will display ALERT!)
  • Use %Y% if MR iscomplete (will display DONE)

Discussion Area

-- DanaBalser - 19 Feb 2008

Topic attachments
I Attachment Action Size Date Who Comment
Green_Bank_Proposal_Processing.docdoc Green_Bank_Proposal_Processing.doc manage 220 K 2008-02-19 - 13:28 DanaBalser Green Bank Proposal Processing
Topic revision: r2 - 2008-02-19, DanaBalser
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding NRAO Public Wiki? Send feedback