Linac Coherent Light Source

SLAC WEB PEOPLE LCLS

LCLS Proposal Management

Proposal Preparation | Regular Proposal Review | PCS Proposal Review |Other LCLS Policies

SUBMIT NEW PROPOSALS BY 4 pm PACIFIC on Tuesday, July 9, 2013. This change reflects the latest plans for operations and LCLS II tunneling/construction for 2014-2015.

Protein Crystal Screening(PCS) proposals for the CXI instrument will be announced separately.

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. 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). Review the proposal process below, collect the required information, and submit your proposal early to avoid a last-minute crisis at the proposal cutoff time. The proposal deadline is strictly enforced: 4 PM Pacific Time. LCLS proposal review policies describe in detail the process that LCLS management uses to review, select and schedule experiments. See other policies.

Users are encouraged to contact LCLS scientists to discuss technical capabilities and proposed experiments. As you plan your next proposals and experiments, note that we have demonstrated FEL operations over the energy range 280 eV to 10 keV using the fundamental with pulse energies of at least 1-3 mJ depending on the pulse duration. This extended energy range down to 280 eV will be available for the 2013-2014 runs. Third harmonic radiation is available up to 25 keV at about 1% of the fundamental pulse energy. The pulse length can be varied from 40 fs to 300 fs for hard X-rays, while for soft X-rays the range is extended to 500 fs. Shorter pulses, <10 fs, with a reduced number of photons per pulse can also be provided. The maximum repetition rate of the LCLS is 120 Hz.

We expect to offer the option of the self-seeded mode beginning in Run 7. Since January 2012, LCLS has been testing the use of a diamond crystal monochromator located part way down the FEL undulator to produce self-seeded pulses of hard X-rays. The tests have successfully demonstrated seeding of very short FEL pulses, though R&D is continuing. It is anticipated that self-seeded operation may be advantageous to some user experiments, and that by early 2013 LCLS will be in a position to reliably offer self-seeded operation to users in an exploratory mode. In general, experiments that use the full bandwidth of the SASE FEL pulse can expect better machine reliability and significantly greater energy per pulse by continuing to operate in SASE (unseeded) mode. Also, seeded operation is not yet available for soft X-ray experiments. However, hard X-ray experiments (7.1-9.5 keV) that require the use of a crystal monochromator can expect increased energy per pulse in self-seeded mode. Currently the self-seeded mode is limited to unfocused X-ray beams (LCLS is working to address issues related to focused beams). Typical parameters for the self-seeded pulses are:

• Photon energy: 7.1-9.5 keV
• Fractional bandwidth: 1 x 10-4 (30 times smaller than the SASE bandwidth)
• Maximum pulse energy: about 0.5 mJ
• Average pulse energy: 0.1 mJ
• Shot-shot energy fluctuations: 100%
• Pulse duration: < 50 fs
• Expected tune-up time: 2-4 hrs

We further envision to reach energies down to 5.5 keV with a larger bandwidth using an asymmetric C(111) Laue reflection.

Regular Proposal Preparation Guidelines

SUBMIT NEW PROPOSALS BY 4 pm PACIFIC on Tuesday, July 9, 2013. This change reflects the latest plans for operations and LCLS II tunneling/construction for 2014-2015..

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 of PIs and collaborators 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: When submitting a proposal, also upload a brief progress report for each proposal that has previously received LCLS beam time. Coordinate these brief (one page) progress reports with team members; include proposal number(s), date(s) of experiment, instrument(s) used, a brief summary of how experiment time was used and results disseminated (list major invited talks, papers published or in press, awards or special recognition). NOTE: User publications are extremely important in demonstrating the scientific impact of LCLS. 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: New information that becomes available after the proposal was submitted may be sub-mitted up to two weeks before the scheduled Proposal Review Panel (PRP). Addenda is limited to one page and must be consistent with the original scope of the proposal. LCLS management will de-termine if the supplemental information meets the criteria to forward such material to the PRP. Forward addenda to the LCLS Proposal Administrator (nbrown@slac.stanford.edu) by September 9, 2013. NOTE: PRP dates are posted on the LCLS Events webpage.

* 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.

Protein Crystal Screening Proposal Preparation Guidelines

Detials about Protein Crystal Screening (PCS) proposals for the CXI instrument will be announced separately..

Researchers may submit Protein Crystal Screening (PCS) proposals to compete for very short allocations of beam time on the CXI instrument (~up to 6 hours). These PCS proposals will be reviewed by the PRP BIO panel separately from the regular proposals. It is understood that PCS proposals are of a more exploratory nature than regular proposals. Since the new PCS screening beamtime is intended in part to explore novel problems and new samples, whether a sample has been used before at LCLS will be a factor considered during the proposal review process. The short time expected to be allocated for each accepted PCS proposal will limit the possibilities of equipment modification to the beamline, for example, limiting the availability of sample delivery systems to those currently owned by CXI. Also, for PCS proposals, no laser excitations will be possible.

There is no restriction with regards to the scope and/or possible overlap or redundancy with regular LCLS proposals. PCS proposals follow a similar format as regular proposals but must be submitted separately. If the PCS proposal is related to one or more regular LCLS proposals that have been submitted or already received beam time, state this in the proposal. PCS proposals are limited to a two-page PDF, including references, figures, and sufficient information to evaluate the impact, originality, need for LCLS, scientific risk, prior results, as well as technical feasibility. A new PCS proposal submission has been added to the user portal; please log in to the user portal to submit your PCS proposals.

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

Provide a brief abstract that concisely summarizes the proposed screening (include abstract in proposal PDF).

Include the following information in the proposal text (include the spokesperson's name in the upper right hand corner of each page). The proposal text is limited to 2 pages in PDF format, not including 1-page progress reports of previous beam time which can be uploaded separately. Pages should have at least 1 inch margins and not less than 10 pt font.

1. Abstract: Provide a brief abstract that concisely summarizes the proposed screening.
2. Experimental Team:In a table, list the names, institution, email address of PIs and collaborators 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 6 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.)
5. 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.
6. Progress Report: When submitting a proposal, also upload a brief progress report for each proposal that has previously received LCLS beam time. Coordinate these brief (one page) progress reports with team members; include proposal number(s), date(s) of experiment, instrument(s) used, a brief summary of how experiment time was used and results disseminated (list major invited talks, papers published or in press, awards or special recognition). NOTE: User publications are extremely important in demonstrating the scientific impact of LCLS. 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."
7. Addenda: New information that becomes available after the proposal was submitted may be sub-mitted up to two weeks before the scheduled Proposal Review Panel (PRP). Addenda is limited to one page and must be consistent with the original scope of the proposal. LCLS management will de-termine if the supplemental information meets the criteria to forward such material to the PRP. Forward addenda to the LCLS Proposal Administrator (nbrown@slac.stanford.edu) by September 9, 2013. NOTE: PRP dates are posted on the LCLS Events webpage.

* 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.

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