Proposal Review Panel

Submitting a proposal is the first step to access beam time at SSRL. Proposals are peer reviewed and rated by the SSRL Proposal Review Panel (PRP) on a scale from 1 (highest) to 3 (lowest). Peer reviewers evaluate proposals based on scientific merit and the value of using synchrotron radiation to accomplish the proposed work. To ensure consistency in the review process, reviewers use the following rating criteria:

Ratings Scale

OUTSTANDING (1.0-1.4): The proposed research is highly original and will significantly influence the development of the field and/or have major societal benefit. The project should be a high priority to receive beam time. The experimental and data analysis plans are very well described, even if the cutting-edge nature of the experiment may carry with it some risk of failure. Please be very clear in your comments as to why this proposal deserves the best possible score.

EXCELLENT (1.5-1.7): The research will influence the development of the field and/or have societal benefit, and should be awarded beam time if available. The experimental and data analysis plans are adequately described. Please give feedback as to what would be needed to take this proposal to the highest level.

GOOD (1.8-2.0): The research is worthwhile and may be deserving of beam time if available. There may be some weaknesses in the experimental or data analysis plans. Please give feedback as to how to improve the proposal to the point that it has a good chance of being awarded beam time.

WEAK (2.1-2.9): The research is of questionable value and/or the experimental and data analysis plans do not suggest confidence in the ability of the team to address the scientific question. Should be given a low priority to receive peer-reviewed beam time. Please give feedback as to how the weaknesses of the proposal could be addressed.

POOR/NO BEAM TIM (3.0): The research is of little to no merit and/or the experimental and data analysis plans are either absent or give no confidence in the abilities of the team to address the scientific question. Should NOT be given beam time even if available. Please be very clear in comments as to why this proposal deserves the worst possible score, and give feedback to the team regarding its major faults.

Review Panels

The work of the PRP is accomplished with five subpanels:

Biology (BIO)- The Biology panel reviews proposals for imaging, x-ray spectroscopic studies, small-angle x-ray scattering experiments, and crystallography of biologically important samples, including bioinorganic systems.

Chemistry and Catalysis (CHEMCAT)- The Chemistry and Catalysis panel reviews proposals for all aspects of chemistry and catalysis. The catalytic science covers heterogeneous, homogeneous and electro-catalysis from model systems to fully formulated catalysts, while the chemical science covers all areas of fundamental and applied chemistry. The techniques include x-ray absorption, x-ray emission, and ambient pressure photoemission spectroscopies, small angle and wide-angle x-ray scattering, imaging, and transmission x-ray microscopy. Often these studies are conducted in-situ and operando.

Earth and Environmental Science (EES) - The Earth and Environmental Science panel reviews proposals for imaging, spectroscopy, diffraction, and scattering studies of samples from field and laboratory settings relevant to environmental, geological, and soil processes, including those influenced by biological activity. Such samples are often characterized by their high degree of spatial, chemical, or structural heterogeneity and their study may require integration of multiple techniques. Investigations of art, archeological samples, and related culture materials are also reviewed by the EES panel (formerly the MEIS panel).

Materials-1 (MAT1) - The Materials-1 panel reviews proposals for hard x-ray materials science, including soft materials, materials for energy generation and storage, structural studies, complex fluids, synthetic polymers, batteries, and organic electronics. Techniques include diffraction, scattering, small-angle x-ray scattering, microscopy or tomography, and any of the x-ray absorption or emission spectroscopies.  Often these studies are conducted in-situ and operando.

Materials-2 (MAT2) - The Materials-2 panel reviews proposals for solid state physics and materials science, including electronic structure of solids, surfaces and interfaces, using UV and soft x-ray sources at SSRL. Examples include angle-resolved and core-level photoelectron spectroscopies, x-ray absorption and x-ray magnetic dichroism, in-situ x-ray absorption, x-ray emission and photoemission.

BIO CHEMCAT MAT1 MAT2 EES

Kelly Chacon
Reed College,
Chemistry
Portland, OR USA

Phillip Christopher
University of California Santa Barbara,
Chemical Engineering
Santa Barbara, CA USA

Mahalingam Balasubramanian 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN USA

John Freeland
Argonne National Lab,
Advanced Photon Source
Argonne, IL USA

Jon Chorover
University of Arizona,
Soil Water & Env Sciences
Tucson, AZ USA

Thomas Grant
University at Buffalo,
Structural Biology
Buffalo, NY USA

 

Ryan Hadt (Co-Chair)
California Inst. Technology,
Chemistry & Chemical Engineering
Pasadena, CA USA

Michael Chabinyc (PRP Chair)
University of California Santa Barbara,
Materials
Santa Barbara, CA USA

Sujoy Roy
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab,
Scattering, Photon Science Operations
Berkeley, CA USA

Owen Duckworth
North Carolina State University,
Soil Science
Raleigh, NC USA

 

Jan Kern
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging Division
Berkeley, CA USA
Christopher Hahn
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA USA
Guoying Chen 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, CA USA
Anthony Van Buuren
Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Nanoscale Integration
Livermore, CA USA
Jonathan Judy
University of Florida,
Soil, Water & Ecosystem Sciences
Gainesville, FL USA

Martina Ralle (Co-Chair)
Oregon Health Sciences University,
Molecular and Medical Genetics
Portland, OR USA

Ayman Karim
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University,
Chemical Engineering
Blacksburg, VA USA

Tim Fister
Argonne National Lab,
Chemical Science & Engineering
Argonne, IL USA

Inna Vishik
University of California Davis, Physics and Astronomy
Davis, CA USA

Yuanzhi Tang
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Earth & Atmospheric Science
Atlanta, GA USA

Ron Stenkamp
University of Washington,
Biological Structure
Seattle, WA USA

Florian Meirer
Utrecht University,
Inorganic Chemistry & Catalysis
Utrecht, The Netherlands

Gaurav Giri
University of Virginia,
Chemical Engineering
Charlottesville, VA USA

 

Alexis Templeton
University of Colorado,
Geological Sciences
Boulder, CO USA

Frank Whitby
University of Utah Health, School of Medicine
Salt Lake City, UT USA

Stefan Minasian
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Berkeley, CA USA

Suchismita Sarker
Cornell University, CHESS, Ithaca, NY USA

 

 

 

  Jason Shearer
Trinity University
Chemistry
San Antonio, TX USA
Yijin Liu
University of Texas at Austin, Walker Department of Mechanical Engineering, Austin, TX USA
   

 

Kelsey Stoerzinger
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN USA

 

 

 

  Janos Szanyi
Pacific Northwest National Lab,
Richland, WA USA
     

 

Alper Uzun
Koc University
Istanbul, Turkey