Notice Regarding Public Dissemination of User Project Information
Since 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (SC) has required that its user facilities provide a limited set of information related to each user project to build a User Project Database. A subset of this information, including your name, institutional affiliation(s), and project title(s), will be publicly disseminated on SC's User Statistics web page after the conclusion of each fiscal year. For proprietary projects, SC requests that the user provide a project title that is suitable for public dissemination. Refer to SC's User Statistics Collection Practices for additional information on data collection and usage.
CNMS Data Management Policy can be found here.
Review Criteria for CNMS Research Proposals
The CNMS expects high-impact, peer-reviewed scientific or technological publications to result from all user research projects. PIs and reviewers should keep this in mind when proposing or evaluating research projects. Detailed proposal review criteria are described on the proposal review form. Note that the questions for reviewers listed on the review form correspond directly to the questions to be addressed by the PI in the 'Description of Proposed Research' section of the user proposal.
PARTNER USER EVALUATION (Yes/No)
This criterion will be applied only to those projects that have been designated by the PI for the Partner User mode. These projects must enhance the capabilities of the CNMS or otherwise contribute to its operation. Typically they develop the facility instrumentation in some way, bringing outside financial and/or intellectual capital into the evolution of the CNMS, or improve the operation of its equipment and facilities. It is required that these contributions must be made available eventually to General Users.
A positive evaluation for this criterion indicates that the Partner’s contribution is likely to deliver significant value to the CNMS and its future users based on the following considerations:
- Would the proposed development represent a major advance in the state-of-the-art either as a revolutionary new capability or through a significant, evolutionary enhancement of an existing capability?
- Would the new capability developed under this proposal be unique in the world, the U.S., or the region (southeastern U.S.)?
- Is the new capability likely to be of broad interest across several subfields of nanoscale science and technology?
- How important is it that this capability be housed at CNMS, either (a) because the CNMS has essential, auxiliary capabilities, (b) because the capability will serve a substantial user community and needs to be centrally available in a NSRC, or (c) because it will significantly strengthen the CNMS in one of its identified Scientific Themes?
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY (Yes/No) – evaluated by CNMS staff prior to external review
CNMS staff and leadership make a determination that a project is feasible based on the answers to both of the following questions:
- Are the present capabilities and expertise at the CNMS adequate to perform the requested tasks?
- Can the research be performed safely at CNMS and in compliance with applicable environmental, safety, and health regulations?
If the answer to either question is NO, the proposal will be returned to the PI without external peer-review.
AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES (No PRC evaluation or score)
The CNMS Director, in consultation with CNMS research leaders, will allocate all available resources based on priorities determined from PRC ratings using the criteria described above.
Requests for Extension of CNMS User Projects
CNMS user projects are initially approved for a term of 12 months. PIs will be offered an opportunity to request one 12-month extension at the end of their original 12-month project period. Extension requests must be limited to the research objectives, technical approach, and level of CNMS time and resources that were originally approved for the peer-reviewed user proposal. PIs will receive an “Application for Extension” form approximately 4-6 weeks before the original expiration date for their project. The application is a 1-page form for listing in bullet style the milestones achieved, milestones pending, any significant obstacles, and publications or presentations (click here for sample form). Interested user PIs will be expected to return these forms promptly, within 2 weeks, and they will be reviewed internally at CNMS. Approval of an extension request is not automatic but is normally granted for projects that can show reasonable progress or have experienced delays due to factors outside of the PI’s control. A new user proposal and full peer review will be required to continue work after the 12-month extension. Below is the expected schedule for upcoming extension requests. Subsequent proposal cycles will follow a similar schedule.
Project numbers in the range CNMS2017-001 through CNMS2017-180, approved in December 2016 (cycle 2017A):
- original expiration is January 31, 2018
- applications for extension will be distributed in early January 2018
- successful applicants will receive a new expiration date of January 31, 2019
- PIs must submit a new, full proposal in the fall of 2018 in order to continue the work beyond January 2019
Project numbers in the range CNMS2017-202 through CNMS2017-431, approved in June 2017 (cycle 2017B):
- original expiration is July 31, 2018
- applications for extension will be distributed in June 2018
- successful applicants will receive a new expiration date of July 31, 2019
- PIs must submit a new, full proposal in the spring of 2019 in order to continue the work beyond July 2019
General Policies and Procedures for User Access to the DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers
Advisory Committee (AC)
Each Center will have an AC or equivalent body that advises senior management on policies related to the optimization of the quality and quantity of the scientific productivity of the facility. The AC will be composed of distinguished scientists from both inside and outside the nanoscale science community. Appointments to the AC will be made by senior management based on nominations from the user community, the Center management, and its advisory bodies. The AC will report to the Laboratory Director or Associate Laboratory Director with senior management oversight responsibility for the Center.
Users’ Executive Committee (UEC)
Each Center will have a UEC or equivalent body that is elected by the user community at large. The UEC will serve as the official voice of the user community in its interactions with Center management. The UEC will elect its Chair and Vice-chair from among its own members, and the UEC Chair will automatically have an ex officio seat on the SAC.
Proposal Review Committees (PRCs)
Evaluation of General User (GU) proposals will be carried out by appropriately constituted Proposal Review Committees. The rank order of scores generated by the PRCs will be the primary input in the allocation of facility access to General Users. The PRC will also provide feedback to the investigators on the quality of their proposals and, where relevant, on perceived weaknesses. The PRC will consist of external scientists (without affiliation to the NSRC) with expertise in various research fields related to nanoscale research. Appointment to the PRCs will be made by the Center Director or designate based on nominations received from the user community and suggestions from the facility management. PRC subcommittees related to the Center's scientific thrusts may be appointed to ensure knowledgeable and efficient handling of user proposals.
Evaluation Criteria and Process
The evaluation criteria used in the peer review procedures will take as their starting point the criteria proposed by the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) in its 1996 recommendations on the operation of major user facilities. These are:
- Scientific merit
- Technical feasibility
- Capability of the experimental group
- Availability of the resources required
These criteria may be supplemented with additional requests, for example to justify the need for special equipment or to satisfy safety and environmental concerns. Special consideration will be given to encourage and support first time users so they can compete effectively in the peer review system. Preference may be given to proposals that utilize the unique capabilities of a Center and contribute to its established scientific thrust areas. The paramount criterion will be scientific merit. [Note: Specific guidelines for implementation of these criteria in the CNMS review process are given here.]
User proposals will be directed first to the Center for a feasibility and safety review. A proposal considered not feasible or safe will be returned to the proposer with appropriate comments including suggested changes.
Proprietary and Non-Proprietary Research
Users of the facilities include academic, industrial and government scientists and engineers. While the vast majority of user research should be in the public domain, and so must be disseminated by publication in the open literature, there may be access for proprietary research that utilizes these unique facilities to benefit the national economy. Users conducting proprietary research may access the facility as either General Users or as Partners. Full cost recovery will be obtained for proprietary research, and efforts will be made to secure appropriate intellectual property control for proprietary users to permit them to exploit their experimental results.
User Access Allocation, Scheduling, and Recording
Allocation of access to equipment and facilities for General Users will be done based on the rankings provided by the PRCs. Partners will manage their own scientific programs, subject to PRC review, and will allocate access among their members. Scheduling of user access will be centralized in the facility User Office using expert input from facility staff and Partner representatives. Center management will have ultimate responsibility and accountability for effective and efficient utilization of time on all equipment at the facility.