Hints on writing good beamtime proposals

1. Describe the "societal impact" of your research in the abstract – reviewers love this.
2. Describe what other measurements -- both laboratory and synchrotron -- have been made on these samples.
3. Be specific and explicit about:
   • The element(s) and edge(s) to be measured
   • The concentrations of elements to be studied.
   • The number of samples you wish to measure.
   • The differences between the samples in your experiment.
   • The extrinsic conditions (temperature, pressure, electrochemical conditions -- whatever is relevant) under which you will measure your samples.
   • The measurement geometry and detectors you will require, i.e. transmission, fluorescence, multi-element detector, etc.
4. Using the specific and explicit information about your measurements, provide a detailed estimate of the time required to complete your experiment.
5. Give literature references.
6. Feel free to attach a figure or two which help to explain your scientific argument.

7. Do not attach your CV. Do not attach PDFs of published papers. Do not attach a PDF which simply restates the information contained in the on-line proposal form.

8. Say you’ve taken a class at one of the synchrotrons! Really! Knowing that you received formal instruction in XAFS at NSLS, APS, or some other synchrotron in the world gives the reviewer confidence that you will use your beamtime well.
9. If you’re a student or postdoc:
   • say so
   • list yourself as Principal Investigator, not your advisor
   • write the proposal yourself, with help from advisor / senior students
10. If you’ve had some beamtime and just "need more time", say so and include plots of relevant data collected so far.
11. Always list a second choice beamline.

Regarding the hint about explicitly describing your experiment

• This point cannot be emphasized strongly enough. Your proposal must make the case that you will use the beamtime effectively. The only way the reviewer can judge the likelihood of effective use is if you provide details about the samples to be measured. Without those details, there is no way the reviewer can justify a lengthy investment of beamtime.

Regarding the hint about self-identifying as a student or post-doc

1. The details of the proposal are very important to the student or post-doc. Quite likely, it is the main scientific topic demanding the attention of the young scientist. The same is probably not true of the advisor. Consequently, the student or post-doc is likely to do a better job at writing the proposal.
2. One of the mandates of the synchrotron and the review panel is to extend the user base. Consequently, the review panels look favorably upon proposals written by young scientists.

• < GUP tutorial home > < Previous page > < Next page >