Difference between revisions of "NSF Reviewer 2014"
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and== | ==advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and== | ||
| + | A measurement of the down to up quark distribution ratio (d/u) was recognized in the 2007 NSAC long range plan as a measurement that will advance our knowledge and understanding of the nucleon. A theoretical nuclear physicist might argue that the form factor measurements proposed here would have far less impact as there are no large diagreements between modern predictions and experiment. | ||
==benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?== | ==benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?== | ||
| − | This is the weakest part of the proposal. The authors describe impacts which a narrowly focused on their specific subfield within nuclear physics. Either they | + | This is the weakest part of the proposal. The authors describe impacts which a narrowly focused on their specific subfield within nuclear physics. Either they do not take this requirement seriously or they are unable to find impacts that go beyond their sub-discipline. |
=To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?= | =To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?= | ||
| + | |||
| + | The main thrust of the proposal is a measurement of the d/u quark distribution ration. The authors did not compare the expected precision of their measurements to available fits/predictions at large x. The lack of this comparison left the question of the impact of their work un-answered. | ||
| + | |||
=Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?= | =Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?= | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The proposal does not seem to have a well described work plan to help evaluate their chances for success. This omission combined with their narrow impact statement suggests that the group is focused more on basic research tasks limited interest in the more broader aspects of research. | ||
| + | |||
=How well qualified is the individual, team, or institution to conduct the proposed activities?= | =How well qualified is the individual, team, or institution to conduct the proposed activities?= | ||
| + | |||
| + | The investigators undertook the work that was left undone by the departure of a graduate student. They have also taken it upon themselves to resolve the discrepancy between the SLAC and JLab data sets. This represents a strong committment to their field and exemplifies their qualifications. | ||
| + | |||
| + | They are now having a graduate student work on a Monte Carlo model of the dipole to be used in JLab's Hall A as a service to the collaboration. JLab's Hall A has agreed to share the costs of a new postdoctoral associate to commission the Cerenkov detector that the afor Monte Carlo simulation will help design. The addition of a good associate would considerably help the group with their proposed work. | ||
| + | |||
=Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?= | =Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?= | ||
| + | |||
| + | The investigators are part of collaborations that perform their experiments at world class nuclear physics laboratories. | ||
Latest revision as of 02:46, 9 February 2014
What is the potential for the proposed activity to
advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
A measurement of the down to up quark distribution ratio (d/u) was recognized in the 2007 NSAC long range plan as a measurement that will advance our knowledge and understanding of the nucleon. A theoretical nuclear physicist might argue that the form factor measurements proposed here would have far less impact as there are no large diagreements between modern predictions and experiment.
benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
This is the weakest part of the proposal. The authors describe impacts which a narrowly focused on their specific subfield within nuclear physics. Either they do not take this requirement seriously or they are unable to find impacts that go beyond their sub-discipline.
To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
The main thrust of the proposal is a measurement of the d/u quark distribution ration. The authors did not compare the expected precision of their measurements to available fits/predictions at large x. The lack of this comparison left the question of the impact of their work un-answered.
Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
The proposal does not seem to have a well described work plan to help evaluate their chances for success. This omission combined with their narrow impact statement suggests that the group is focused more on basic research tasks limited interest in the more broader aspects of research.
How well qualified is the individual, team, or institution to conduct the proposed activities?
The investigators undertook the work that was left undone by the departure of a graduate student. They have also taken it upon themselves to resolve the discrepancy between the SLAC and JLab data sets. This represents a strong committment to their field and exemplifies their qualifications.
They are now having a graduate student work on a Monte Carlo model of the dipole to be used in JLab's Hall A as a service to the collaboration. JLab's Hall A has agreed to share the costs of a new postdoctoral associate to commission the Cerenkov detector that the afor Monte Carlo simulation will help design. The addition of a good associate would considerably help the group with their proposed work.
Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
The investigators are part of collaborations that perform their experiments at world class nuclear physics laboratories.