LaserNetUS encourages scientists from diverse fields to propose experiments utilizing the consortium’s wide-ranging capabilities. International Principal Investigators are welcome. We recommend that scientists describe well-posed experiments. Proposals must include brief discussions of the expected scientific or technological impact and anticipated feasibility and probability of success of experiments. Proposals that include a clear description of the expected schedule, indicating the scope, have a better chance of being selected.
Proposal Review Process
Proposal Template
Effective Cycle 5, LaserNetUS proposals must be prepared using the official template. The format and detailed guidelines are intended to assist new applicants with preparing a competitive proposal as well as standardizing the proposal review process.
The proposal is still limited to 6 pages in PDF format, not including four appendixes:
- (I) References;
- (II) Tentative Research Team;
- (III) Technical Parameter Table; and
- (IV) Target Support Request.
Proposal Guidelines and Required Content
Changes Since Cycle 5
- The OMEGA EP Laser Facility at the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE) will only be accepting proposals for LaserNetUS experiments related to inertial fusion energy (IFE) during Cycle 6.
- The Jupiter Laser Facility (JLF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) will provide access to Titan, Janus/TA1 and COMET Lasers during Cycle 6. JLF now provides all its external beamtime allocations through LaserNetUS. All users who have used the separate call from JLF to submit their proposals in the past should now submit through LaserNetUS.
- The Advanced Beam Laboratory (ABL) at Colorado State University now offers intermediate focusing (f/6) of the ALEPH PW at both the fundamental (800 nm) and second harmonic (400 nm) wavelengths.
Notes
- Definition of Spokesperson and Lead PI
The ‘Spokesperson’ is the primary administrative contact for the proposed experiment. The ‘Lead PI’ typically conceives of the idea, designs the experiment, and leads the experimental team and analysis effort. In almost all cases, the Spokesperson and Lead PI are the same. - Proposal Submissions as Student/Postdoc
A ‘Co-PI’ is required for all submissions when a student or postdoc is the Lead PI. In this case, the Co-PI is typically the supervisor/manager and is expected to provide the necessary training, oversight, funding, and resources to execute the experiment. Additionally, the Co-PI will be contacted if the student/postdoc leaves the field. - Tentative Research Team
A list of all participants that you expect to be involved in the proposed research is required. It should include students, designers/modelers, target fabrication technicians, etc. This information is collected in Appendix II - Tentative Research Team. This information is critical to assess if the team/collaboration has adequate experience and staffing levels are compatible with the support provided by the facility. - Safety
Safety related documents must be submitted during the safety management portion of the LaserNetUS proposal submission process in the user portal. List and describe any safety concerns that may arise with samples you will examine, equipment you will use, or techniques you will perform (including any physical, chemical or biological hazards) and how these issues will be addressed. - Cost
There is no cost to submit proposals or conduct experiments. DOE provides access free of charge to users at all LaserNetUS sponsored facilities. Users are generally responsible for their own travel and target expenses as well as any extraordinary consumables required by the experiment. - Designating Primary and Secondary Facility
Each proposal is for one specific experiment, with the option to designate first and second choice for a facility. The PRP will rank a proposal for the primary facility that was requested and will only consider it at the secondary facility if it was not competitive at the primary facility. If a proposal was not competitive at the primary or secondary facility, the PRP may recommend an alternative facility if available. In this case, the Spokesperson may accept or decline the transfer to the alternate facility. - Scientific Campaigns
Proposals may be made in the context of a larger scope than can be covered in a single experiment. All proposals, even these broader proposals that address important problems, must be resubmitted each cycle in order to be peer reviewed and considered for facility time. However, in the absence of sufficient information to evaluate progress (data disseminated from previous facility time, publications, etc.), the PRP may recommend that some proposal(s) be postponed for consideration until a future review cycle. - Publication Record from Previous LaserNetUS Experiments
In future calls, the PRP will pay particular attention to the applicants' publication record from prior LaserNetUS facility times. Failure to publish in a timely manner could impact the chances of a successful application in a similar area. - Resubmission
Proposals can be re-submitted at each call, but this will not happen automatically and a re-submission will not receive preference during the review process. - Multiple Submissions
Multiple submissions from the same team for similar experiments at different LaserNetUS facilities will not be considered. While there is no limit to the number of distinct proposals that can be submitted by a scientist or team, the Proposal Review Panel (PRP) may impose a relative advantage to the first-best proposal from each team. - Required Language
Proposal teams must acknowledge the host institution and DOE Office of Science in presentations and publications using the template: "This work was supported by DOE Office of Science, Fusion Energy Sciences under Contract No. [LaserNetUS contract number from facility]: the LaserNetUS initiative at [Facility]," and any other acknowledgement required by the host institution.
Ready to Submit Your Proposal?
Submission Schedule
Cycle | Type | Proposal deadline | Cycle begins | Cycle ends | Awards |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | LaserNetUS standard proposal call | Mar. 18, 2019 4pm PT | July 2019 | Dec. 2019 | Cycle 1 |
2 | LaserNetUS standard proposal call | Sept. 6, 2019 4pm PT | Jan. 2020 | Dec. 2020 | Cycle 2 |
3 | LaserNetUS standard proposal call | Dec. 11, 2020 4pm PT | June 2021 | June 2022 | Cycle 3 |
4 | LaserNetUS standard proposal call | Dec. 10, 2021 4pm PT | July 2022 | July 2023 | Cycle 4 |
5 | LaserNetUS standard proposal call | Dec. 21, 2022 4pm PT | Sept. 2023 | July 2024 | Cycle 5 |
6 | LaserNetUS standard proposal call | Dec. 12, 2023 4pm PT | July 2024* | July 2025 |
*Earliest start date will depend on facility readiness and proposal feasibility.
Proposal Review Process
- Pre-Review / Conflict of Interest (COI) Stage
PRP members review basic proposal information. Potential COI are identified and addressed by the Chair of the PRP.
- Initial Review Stage
The Chair assigns 3 reviewers to each proposal and designates a primary and secondary reviewer. PRP members are required to read, at minimum, the abstract of all other proposals. Proposals are scored on Intellectual Merit (75%) and Broader Impact (25%).
- Final Review Stage
Initial ranking by Chair based on reviews. Primary reviewers lead discussion of each proposal. New rank ordering and sorting by facility. Overall science mix assessed.
- Facility Feasibility Review
The top ranked proposals for each facility will be sent to the Facility Directors for evaluation of technical feasibility.
- Final Decision
PRP review and feasibility review integrated by PRP. Final list of awards submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES). Decision letters emailed to each PI and facility Director.