Compliance in Proposal Preparation
Proposers should not use AI services to generate proposal content; AI services may be used to improve the readability of the proposal's text. In such cases, proposers shall declare that AI services were used during the proposal preparation in their Science Justification. Proposers are responsible for the content of their proposals and must properly reference materials to prevent plagiarism. Proposals are required to be original and free of plagiarized material.
Proposals that are not in compliance with Observatory policies may be rejected or be reduced in scheduling priority. The following is a non-exhaustive review of common cases of non-compliance.
-
A Regular proposal that is determined to be incorrectly submitted as a Triggered proposal.
- A Triggered proposal that is incorrectly submitted as a Regular proposal.
-
A Scientific Justification that is not compliant with the formatting requirements described above.
-
Relevant information is missing from the Technical Justification. This includes the additional materials such as the output of the sensitivity calculator or mapping calculator.
-
The information in the output of the sensitivity calculator, mapping calculator, spectral line configuration, etc. is incomplete or incorrect.
-
Proposals that intentionally propose for inaccurate source coordinates with the purpose of obscuring the true positions of the sources.
-
A Large proposal that fails to provide a data management and data release plan.
Connect with NRAO