CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION

Grades from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) will be assigned to the items below; the overall grade will be the average between them.

Technical and Scientific quality of the proposal:

• Are the scientific motivation and objectives of the experiment clearly described?
• If it is a continuation of a previous proposal, is the justification adequate?
• Are the samples to be studied clearly described and characterized?
• Are there preliminary studies that justify measurements with synchrotron light?
• The expected results using synchrotron light seem to have scientific or technical relevance? Is the technique adequate?

Scientific production and quality of the team:

• Is the team dynamic in terms of publications?
• Is the team well-formed to carry out the proposal? Are there enough participants for beam time to be used effectively? Does the team have participants with experience in the technique? Typically, for two- or three-day experiments, the team should consist of at least two or three members. A synchrotron light experiment is rarely a solitary experiment.

Submitting reports and publications (when there are previous proposals):

• Have reports been produced on previous experiments? The reports, when submitted to SAU Online, are automatically added to the end of the proposal PDF.
• Have previous publications related to experiments with synchrotron light been of good quality? When available, this list will also be added to the proposal.

EVALUATION PHASES

Phase 1 (Feasibility): The proposal is internally reviewed by the beamline team to judge the feasibility of the proposed experiment. Both the content of the Research Proposal and the Experimental Methods section are of particular importance for this review. The proposal may be sent back to the proposer for minor adequacies, which should be replied shortly after requested.

Phase 2 (Quality): The external Proposal Review Committee (PRC) reviews and ranks the competing proposals based on the following criteria: scientific merit and team experience, reports on previous proposals and scientific publications based on results obtained at LNLS beamlines. The best-ranked proposals recommended to be awarded with beamtime are classified as High-priority and Low-priority proposals. A Rejected proposal list is also produced.

Phase 3 (Safety): Internal review by the Safety team of the best-ranked proposals for compliance with safety concerns. In case of an issue, the proponent receives a message from the SAU Online website and must provide all additional pieces of information shortly after requested.

Phase 4 (Availability): Beamtime is assigned to those best-ranked (High priority) proposals that were cleared for their technical and safety issues.

Phase 5 (Availability and Schedule): The Local Allocation Committee (LAC) schedule the High-priority proposals that were cleared for their technical and safety issues. The number of runs may be adapted and split into a few visits while the proposal is valid (expiration in 1-2 years).

Phase 6 (Communication and Instructions): The proponents receive a message from the SAU Online with the scheduled period and instructions to prepare their stay at the LNLS.