UPDATE TO THE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY EVALUATION PROCESS

In addition to changes in the proposal format, the technical feasibility evaluation process will also be modified, becoming more active, continuous, and integrated into the submission and evaluation flow. 

Technical feasibility analysis will begin at the moment of proposal submission, without the need to wait for the final call deadline. Beamline scientists will provide feedback on technical feasibility issues as quickly as possible, allowing proponents to clarify aspects of the experiment and, when feasible, adjust the proposal to suit beamline capabilities. This process creates a more dynamic interaction, enabling refinement of proposals to make them technically viable. 

The proposal submission period runs from February 10 to March 8, 2026. 

The interactive technical feasibility process, with the possibility of dialogue and adjustments, will occur from February 10 to March 22, 2026. 

Between March 22 and 29, 2026, technical feasibility finalizations will be carried out, with no possibility of adjustments by proponents. 

This new model aims to encourage proponents to submit their proposals before the final deadline (March 8, 2026), in order to allow more time for interaction with beamline teams and increase the chances that the proposed experiments are technically viable and well matched to Sirius infrastructure.

SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

• The names of proposers and reviewers will only be revealed after the final evaluation by the Proposal Scientific Evaluation Committee (CACIP). Proposals will be judged according to the criteria described below. 

• Submissions must include the names and affiliations of all researchers in the appropriate fields of the SAU Online form; however, the User Office (EdU) will not include names or affiliations in the versions sent to reviewers. 

• Proposals may only be submitted after confirmation by the Principal Investigator (PI) selected in the proposal form. An email notification will be sent in the PI’s name informing them about the proposal preparation, and they must access the SAU Online platform to confirm submission. If the PI does not confirm submission by the end of the deadline, the proposal will not be considered submitted. The proponent will have the option to resend the notification email if no response is received or to select another PI.

• With adjustments to the technical feasibility evaluation process, every submitted proposal will initially receive “pre-submitted” status. Only after completion of the technical feasibility analysis, and if considered viable, will the proposal then be changed to “submitted” status.

• If the proposal is considered not technically viable, it will be rejected and will not proceed to the scientific evaluation stage. In this situation, the proponent will be able to submit a new proposal within the submission period.

• All viable proposals will be sent for evaluation by at least five anonymous reviewers (known only by the User Office – EdU) and without any identification of the proponents. 

• In proposals based on double-anonymous evaluation, the PI must provide scientific reviews of other proposals based on the synergy between their area of expertise and the topics of the proposals. In situations where the PI does not have full confidence in the suitability of their expertise to the topic of one or more proposals received for review, they are encouraged to indicate in the evaluation the weighting factor of their suitability to the proposal’s area. 

• If the PI identifies a conflict of interest with respect to any proposal assigned to them, they may request replacement directly in the SAU Online system, with justification. Further details follow. 

• The Proposal Scientific Evaluation Committees (CACIP) will classify proposals by scientific merit based on anonymous reviews. Only after completion of the CACIP review process will the identity of proposers be revealed. Final beamtime allocation will be made by a proposal allocation committee formed by LNLS management, based on scientific merit ranking and possible adjustments until full occupation of available user shifts. 

• Peer review: For each submitted proposal, the PI (Principal Investigator) will contribute by reviewing five proposals in their area of knowledge; for example, if the PI submitted one proposal, they will receive five proposals to review. If the PI submits two proposals, they will receive ten proposals to review. The PI may request, as deemed necessary, that collaborators on the submitted proposals assist in reviewing proposals, with the PI being solely responsible for submitting reports in the SAU Online system. The User Office (EdU) will assign proposals for peer review, eliminating conflicts of interest between the proposals and the PI. 

• Penalty system: If the PI fails to submit proposal reviews or submits incompatible reviews without scientific contribution, 0.1 negative points will be counted for each proposal not reviewed. At the end of the process, this “balance” will be distributed equally among the proposals submitted by them as PI. Example: if two proposals were submitted by a certain PI, that PI had ten reviews to complete and only completed six; thus they have a negative balance of 0.4 points (four missing reviews × 0.1 point), so each of the two proposals submitted by that PI will have 0.2 points subtracted (0.4 balance / two proposals). 

• Bonus system: As each research proposal must contain up to five reviews, the CACIP must judge their quality and indicate which had the best contribution in the proposal evaluation process. The PI who authored that best review for a proposal will receive 0.1 points added to the proposal’s score. Review evaluation is conducted anonymously so that CACIP does not know the identities of reviewers or proposers. At the end, the “bonus” balance and penalties received by each PI who submitted two proposals and therefore issued ten reviews—being rewarded with 0.2 points for issuing two reviews judged as the best—will be distributed between their two proposals so that each proposal has 0.1 points added to its score.

• Resubmission of proposals: In order to value proposals of high scientific merit that were not selected due to the high competitiveness of the previous call, previously well-evaluated proposals may be resubmitted in the current call. However, due to the adjustment implemented in this call—where technical feasibility evaluation occurs at the beginning of the process—the resubmitted proposal will also undergo the initial technical feasibility evaluation and may be accepted or rejected, without the possibility of editing. This occurs because, during this transition, resubmitted proposals will still be linked to the old form. If the resubmitted proposal is considered technically viable, it will benefit from automatic maintenance of the score obtained in the previous call, plus 0.2 points. To use this modality, the researcher must resubmit the proposal in the SAU Online system through the “resubmit a proposal” link, without any change to the originally submitted text. If the researcher wishes to edit or supplement the existing proposal, it is recommended to submit a new proposal following the current process. According to LNLS-Sirius evaluation rules, a researcher who resubmits a proposal will be required to review five research proposals, following the same criteria as a conventional submission.

  Important: Each research proposal may be resubmitted only once. Proposals already resubmitted in previous calls may not be resubmitted in this modality.

PHASES OF THE EVALUATION

Phase 1 (Technical feasibility evaluation during the proposal submission period): Technical feasibility analysis will begin at the moment of proposal submission, without the need to wait for the final call deadline. Beamline scientists will provide feedback on technical feasibility issues as quickly as possible, allowing proponents to clarify aspects of the experiment and, when feasible, adjust the proposal to suit beamline capabilities. This process creates a more dynamic interaction, enabling refinement of proposals to make them technically viable. 

Phase 2 (Distributed Double-Blind): Proposals previously anonymized on the SAU Online platform are distributed and evaluated by peers from the areas indicated when completing the submission form (area committee). The new-format evaluation seeks to prioritize clarity, objectivity, and adherence to the scientific method, allowing direct identification of: (i) the scientific hypotheses to be tested; (ii) whether the proposed experiment is suitable to test them; and (iii) the level of maturity of the study, based on prior characterizations already carried out. 

Phase 3 (Merit score analysis): The Proposal Scientific Evaluation Committee (CACIP) analyzes and classifies competing proposals based on the scores received during Phase 2, may modify them, and prepares feedback texts to proponents. Particular attention is given to cases of major discrepancy between the received scores. CACIP will define the final score of proposals following the same criteria as Phase 1. 

Phase 4 (Proposal ranking): Internal evaluation by the Beamline Time Allocation Committee, formed by LNLS management, which defines the final classification. 

Phase 5 (Evaluation result): Proponents receive a notification through SAU Online informing them of the proposal evaluation result. However, the proposal will not yet be ready for scheduling execution dates, as sample safety evaluation will be required before advancing to the next stage. 

Phase 6 (Safety): Internal evaluation by the Safety Committee of the highest-ranked proposals to ensure compliance with safety requirements. In case of doubts, the proponent receives a message from the SAU Online website and must provide all additional information promptly upon request. 

Phase 7 (Communication and Instructions): Proponents receive a message from SAU Online with the scheduled period and instructions to prepare for arrival and execution of the proposal.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Reviewers are instructed to provide a detailed evaluation on the technical and scientific quality of the proposal, paying attention to the following items that will guide the report and the final grade:  

• What is the scientific relevance of the hypothesis to be tested?
• Will the proposed experiment test the hypothesis?
• Do the prior characterizations and the sample preparation description support the hypothesis and the proposed experiment?

Grades from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) will be assigned according to the guidelines below, and the overall grade will be the average between them.  

Score and Criteria for evaluation of proposals:

Scoring for Question 1: What is the scientific relevance of the hypothesis to be tested? 

5 – Exceptional scientific question, clear and high impact
The question is very well defined, specific, and directly testable, addressing a critical knowledge gap.
There is strong alignment between hypothesis, methodology, and experimental capabilities.
It has the potential to generate significant conceptual advances or a paradigm shift, with high impact in the field. 

4 – Clear and relevant question with good impact potential
The question is well formulated and testable, targeting a relevant knowledge gap.
The proposal shows good coherence between the hypothesis and the experimental approach.
The results may significantly expand or refine current understanding, with consistent impact. 

3 – Valid question, but incremental or partially developed
The question is reasonably defined but presents some ambiguity or limitations in formulation.
It represents a natural extension of existing studies, with predominantly incremental impact.
The results are likely to confirm or adjust current interpretations, with moderate advancement. 

2 – Weak, poorly defined, or low-impact question
The question is vague, partially formulated, or difficult to test.
The scientific motivation is limited or weakly connected to the proposed hypothesis.
The potential for conceptual advancement is low, with limited impact. 

1 – Absent or non-testable question
There is no clear scientific question or testable hypothesis.
The proposal is based on replication or characterization without proper justification.
It does not allow an objective evaluation of scientific merit or conceptual advancement.

Scoring for Question 2: Will the proposed experiment test the hypothesis? 

5 – Ideal and conclusive experiment design
The experiment directly tests the hypothesis with clearly defined and unambiguous observables.
The technique is necessary, sufficient, and optimized for the scientific question.
Positive or negative results lead to clear and unambiguous conclusions. 

4 – Robust and well-aligned design
The experiment directly addresses the hypothesis, with only minor limitations or interpretative dependencies.
The technique is appropriate and well justified.
The results allow solid conclusions, with low ambiguity. 

3 – Adequate design, but with limitations
The experiment addresses the hypothesis indirectly or partially.
The observables may require additional interpretation or allow multiple interpretations.
The technique is relevant but not fully optimized for the question. 

2 – Weak or partially disconnected design
The experiment only partially addresses the hypothesis, with an indirect link between observables and the scientific question.
There is significant ambiguity in the interpretation of results.
The chosen technique is not ideal or is poorly justified. 

1 – Inadequate or non-conclusive design
Even with ideal data, the experiment would not answer the proposed hypothesis.
There is no clear relationship between observables, technique, and scientific question.
The design is generic or inappropriate, preventing meaningful conclusions.

Scoring for Question 3: Do the prior characterizations and sample preparation support the hypothesis and the proposed experiment? 

5 – Fully appropriate and well-validated sample and characterization
The sample is clearly appropriate for the experiment and directly aligned with the hypothesis being tested.
The preparation is well described, reproducible, and compatible with the technical requirements.
Prior characterizations are comprehensive and unequivocally demonstrate that the sample has the required properties. 

4 – Appropriate sample with good characterization
The sample is suitable for the experiment, with well-described and consistent preparation.
Prior characterizations are sufficient to support the proposal, although not fully comprehensive.
There is good confidence that the sample will allow reliable testing of the hypothesis. 

3 – Possibly adequate sample, with limitations
The suitability of the sample is plausible but not fully demonstrated.
The preparation is partially described or contains relevant gaps.
Prior characterizations are limited and may introduce uncertainty in data interpretation. 

2 – Inadequate or insufficiently characterized sample
The link between the sample and the hypothesis is not well established.
The preparation is poorly described or potentially unsuitable for the proposed technique.
Prior characterizations are insufficient to ensure reliable experimental outcomes. 

1 – Inadequate or non-validated sample
The sample is not appropriate for the experiment or there is no evidence of its suitability.
The preparation is absent, inconsistent, or incompatible with the technique.
There is no relevant prior characterization to support the proposal, fully compromising the experiment’s validity. 

Weighted score ranking   

A weighting value applied to a reviewer’s score based on their knowledge and expertise in the area of a proposal being evaluated aims to communicate the confidence of the reviewer in the grade assigned during the review process. Even if the reviewer is not an expert in the scientific area of the proposal, this weighting will be applied as a correction factor, and the value of the final grade will be adjusted by the CACIP committee accordingly.  

A drop-down menu next to the grade to be assigned in the review screen of the proposal brings values of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5, where the reviewer at the time of the evaluation will assign the weighting value.  The CACIP will then jointly evaluate the grade assigned to the proposal and the weighting value to prepare the final grade and comments to users.  The table below summarizes the attribution of the weight of the familiarity between the expertise area of the reviewer and the research area of the proposal to be evaluated.  

SCIENTIFIC PROPOSALS EVALUATION COMMITTEE (SPEC)

The Committee for the Scientific Evaluation of Proposals (CACIP), composed of renowned researchers external to CNPEM and experienced in synchrotron use, will analyze the scientific merit of research proposals based on anonymous reviewer reports. The final score of each proposal will be based exclusively on the distribution of reviewer evaluations and the information provided in the proposals.

The composition of the CACIP with their respective affiliations, areas of activity in the committee, and terms of office are provided in the table below. In case of unavailability of any member for any reason, LNLS will appoint a substitute. Terms of office may be renewed.

Criteria evaluated by the LNLS Allocation Committee (Stage 4 of the proposal flowchart): 

• Is the scientific proposal appropriate for the beamline requested by the proponent?
• Are the proposed experiments aligned with the technical capabilities of the equipment and supplies available at the experimental stations?
• Does the scientific proposal mention the use of support laboratories? Do the support laboratories have the equipment and techniques requested by the user? If the LNLS team judges that the proposal requires the use of a support laboratory, it may later be included in the proposal.
• Is the team well formed to carry out the proposal? Are there sufficient participants to ensure beamtime is used effectively? Does the team include participants experienced in the technique? Normally, for two- or three-day experiments, the team should include at least two or three members. A synchrotron experiment is rarely a solitary experiment.

ANONYMITY GUIDELINES FOR PROPONENTS

Every proposal must be written in the third person so as not to intentionally identify the candidates. Below are some tips to help conceal the candidate’s identity and ensure a fairer proposal evaluation process:

• Do not include author names or affiliations anywhere in the proposal text fields;
• When citing references in the proposal, use neutral wording and the third person. This applies especially to self-references. For example, replace phrases such as “as we showed in our previous work (José et al. 2020)” with “as José et al. (2020) showed…”;
• Do not refer to previous projects using language that reveals the identity of the candidate(s);
• Use references to published work, including works citable by DOI, without including information that could reveal the identity of the candidate(s);
• Do not include acknowledgments or the source of any funding in the experimental section of the submission;
• Team experience and track record are provided as supplementary information and must not be included in the experimental section of the submission;

Please contact the beamline teams and heads of LNLS scientific divisions to discuss your ideas (). For questions related to proposal submission guidelines, contact the User Office (EdU – edu@cnpem.br).