Top arrow pointing up

Proposal Review Panel

LaserNetUS' Proposal Review Panel

The Proposal Review Panel (PRP) is responsible for the evaluation of LaserNetUS proposals for scientific and technical merit. It was established as an independent and confidential committee to provide unbiased recommendations for facility laser time across all participating institutions.

Panel Structure

Arianna Gleason

Arianna Gleason


Tammy Ma

Tammy Ma


The panel consists of 10-20 scholars with a balanced representation of the organizations and disciplines across High Energy Denstity (HED) and high-intensity laser science. The PRP Chair is responsible for selecting new members of the PRP. LaserNetUS facility directors and technical staff are ineligible from serving on the PRP committee. The Chair of the PRP will serve no more than two (2) consecutive years while the PRP members will be recruited for 3-year terms.

At the end of the proposal review process, the Chair will provide a written response letter to the spokesperson of each proposal submitted to LaserNetUS with feedback and an official recommendation (accept/decline). Note that the Chair does not serve in a voting or scoring capacity to ensure a principled execution of the PRP procedure.

Confidentiality is strictly upheld to protect LaserNetUS users, the PRP members, and scientific integrity. Since PRP members are privy to the details of all LaserNetUS proposal submissions, they are charged with protecting the intellectual property, ideas, and concepts contained in the proposals. They must not copy, quote, use, or disclose any material from a proposal they are asked to review.

A strict Conflict of Interest (COI) policy has been established to manage and maintain an ethical framework for the PRP. A conflict of interest is normally deemed to arise:
- when a PRP member is named as a participant on the proposal;
- where a PRP member is from the same Research Organization* as the authors of the proposal;
- where a PRP member has any commercial or financial/pecuniary interest, for example where the PRP member is part of an organization that may benefit financially, directly or indirectly, from the outcome of the review;
- where a PRP member has a close personal (including family) and/or close professional connection to any authors of the proposal.

*For large organizations (e.g. CERN), the Chair of the PRP will determine on what level of the organization may constitute a conflict of interest. Typically, this will be for someone who is in the same academic department, or facility, as the authors of the proposal.