Step by Step guide to the proposal
From the scenario given above, we understand how the outline of the proposal is evolving:
Aims of the experiments and background (scientific background)
We need to explain in a rather compact manner the status of our research proposal, clearly stating what the open questions are, and what is needed to answer the question we are concerned with. It is actually rather difficult to do this in a very compact format of ½ page or so. We have to give an introduction in only few sentences; we have to make the point of what is still problematic, unsolved, unknown; and we need to explain how we are addressing this particular question. It is also important to show that our sample has already been characterised by as many non-SR techniques as possible. We must use literature references, but not too many, because space for them at the end of the proposal is limited, and we also want to refer to our own work on the topic, with or without SR, as well. Since at least a number (if not all) of the panel members are experts of the field and know the literature, they will get an impression from the references whether we know the literature: quoting one or two important references is therefore a good idea, since this indirectly shows our expertise. A figure is often useful to provide context. This is also the section that really needs to address the “why” and “so what” type of question. It is important that you articulate a clear scientific question that is being addressed by the proposal. Back to top
Experimental Methods (measurement strategy)
In this section we need to explain to the reviewer how in particular we are going to perform the measurement, what do we need for instrumentation (this can be shifted in part in the next section), and how we are going to analyse the data. It may be useful to add some simulations to highlight how the analysis will proceed and how the information may be extracted from the data set. This section has two purposes: first, beside the referees also the beamline scientist will review our proposal and has to comment whether the proposed experiment is feasible. Second, the referee will be able to judge from this section how experienced we are, how difficult and feasible the experiment is. This does not mean that the experiment should be described as rather easy. If it is particularly challenging and ground-breaking, this can also be very attractive as synchrotron facilities are not the places to do standard characterisation, but prefer to host the most forefront experiments. Back to top
Justification for Using XMaS
Here we must justify why we are asking for beamtime on XMaS, highlighting what aspects of the facility are well aligned to the proposed experiments. We also need to justify (within the wider experimental strategy) how much beamtime is required for our experiment.
Suppose we know already that XMaS is well suited for the experiment we propose – i.e. we can use the proper X-ray energy, the primary beam properties (monochromaticity, brilliance) are all right, the goniometer allows to use the scattering geometry we propose, the detectors available enable collection of the required data in a reasonable time frame. The amount of beamtime is another question: on the one hand, while we want as much as possible, asking for unrealistically many “shifts” (typically 8 hours, so one day are three shifts) will rather be seen as a negative aspect of the proposal: reviewers will assume we know how synchrotrons operate and how beamtime is allocated, and boldly asking too much might appear as an offence. Asking for one shift extra for setup of the beamline is usually o.k. It is a good idea to detail succinctly how one comes to the requested number of shifts, especially for those experiments which can take some time. In the case that our proposal is close to the cut-off, the referees might suggest beamtime be granted but with somewhat less shifts than requested. Such a move is easier if the referees can make a useful suggestion like: they asked for 15 shifts for 5 samples, if they can measure 3 samples in 9 shifts, they can show that the method works and request beamtime again, with first data and the proof of success already given. If it is unclear whether shortening is possible or not (there are experiments that cannot be shortened in a meaningful way), this option is already ruled out. The amount of beamtime allocated to a proposal can even be cut down despite it being above the cut-off, if the panel agrees that the requested amount is excessive, or the experimental plan is not clearly justified. Back to top
Results Expected
This section is one of the sections that at first sight seems superfluous for such a short proposal. It is not. We need to give a very compact view of what we hope to learn from the proposed experiment. So do not put general phrases here that sound like “don’t worry, we will learn something anyhow” or “we will for sure clarify every possible detail of the material system under investigation”. Of course, you would never do that on purpose. But read your phrases again: could the impression the referee gets go in that direction? It is better to be very clear and put well-defined, attainable results in this section. Making a list is not a bad idea, it makes it easier for the reviewers to orient themselves in the proposal. A particular problem is to find the balance between important enough results and not overdoing it. Remember that the panel, with its diverse background, may need to have the main goals of the proposal explained highlighting that the scientific issue is topical and of a wider interest. “Identifying the growth mechanism of …” might be more attractive than “determining the dependence of layer growth rate on growth temperature and the rate of …”, but on the other hand “our results are crucial for solving the world’s energy production problems” would be a claim that needs an extremely good proposal to support it. It Is important to make a strong link between the results expected and the wider scientific questions articulated in the introduction. Back to top
References
As mentioned above, references do not serve the same purpose in a short proposal than in a publication. Of course, we must refer to the original literature when we make a claim that is not our work and not obvious, but a finding of somebody else. But since we do not have too much space, we can restrict ourselves to a few important papers of the field to show that we know the relevant literature. We must also refer to our own publications on the topic, with or without application of SR, to show that we are already experienced (to some extent) in the field, have done previous work (including characterization of the material by in-house, non-SR techniques), know the method, etc. All this primarily serves the purpose of convincing the referee that we will manage to perform the proposed work. Beside the scientific attractiveness of our work, this is a very important point to make. Back to top
Proposal Summary
The summary will usually be the last thing we write, although it will appear at the beginning. Its purpose is the following (in line with what we explained about how the panel works): reviewers that are forced to read many proposals will not memorize all of them very well. We need to give them a very quick way to remember what our main point was and allowing them to “defend” our proposal in the review panel meeting, and grade it appropriately.