What's the process? - Prospective User Guide

Look at the Beamline capabilities webpage.  Determine which beamline and technique best fits your experimental needs.  If you have questions contact a Staff Scientist to discuss your research (the CHESS User Office will also get you in touch with the appropriate Staff Scientist):

• What is the research problem?
• Which station(s) are appropriate?
• How mature is the research project (risk, size)? Has this been tried on a home source?
• What is the material - sample composition, form, size, availability?
• What are the experimental conditions (temperature, pressure, etc.)?
• What will be measured?
• Probability of success? Impact? Significance?
• How will results be presented and to whom?
• What is the timeline?

Specifically, the proposal form will cover these areas:

• PI and collaborators (name, email, affiliation)
• Available run cycles, request dates, and estimated number of 8-hour shifts (We run 24/7, please ensure you have enough collaborators to support beam time around the clock if awarded)
• Beamline(s) available for proposed experiment (dependent on the Run cycle selected and sub-facility, see the Deadlines page for more information)
• Funding
• Itemize the sample and briefly describe each material and its state. Consider the following for each sample:
  • Space group
  • Unit Cell Size (Angstrom)
  • Prior Diffraction Resolution (Angstrom)
  • Physical Size of Largest Crystals Grown (millimeters)
• Declare Hazardous Materials, including but not limited to chemicals, nanoscale, and radioactive materials.
  • Be prepared to describe procedures in case of any emergency, including spills or accidental release of toxic materials, personnel injury, fires, etc.
• Scientific Justification
• Experimental plan
  • Please state explicitly the experiments that you plan to perform in pursuit of the answers to your scientific abstract.
  • Be explicit with the techniques you will employ, the experience level of your group, and the results you might expect. It may be appropriate to comment on how you would respond to difficulties encountered.
  • Beam requirements (size, energy, energy resolution) and instrumentation to be provided by CHESS (hardware, software, detectors, etc.) if not already checked elsewhere

Please upload any relevant reference materials, including figures and chemical safety forms. Do not include scientific justification or the experimental plan in the attachments. All text should be entered directly into the proposal form. 

General information about Proposal Submission and Beam Time Requests (BTRs):

• Once submitted, the proposal is active for 2 years.
• The first BTR will be automatically created based on the run cycle selected in the proposal.
• Subsequent BTRs must be submitted by you or a collaborator listed on the proposal to be eligible for beam time in future run cycles.
• Example: If your proposal is for the first run cycle of the year (2025_1), we will automatically create the BTR for 2025_1. You need to log into BeamPASS and create BTRs (denoted by letter -b, -c, etc) for 2025_2 onward for beam time eligibility.
• Note: Unscheduled BTRs are not saved for future cycles.

Regular Proposal Submission

Applicable Beamlines:

• CHEXS: PIPOXS (2A), FAST (3A), QM2 (4B)
• MacCHESS: XBio / BioSAXS (7A), XBio / FlexX (7B2)
• MSN-C: SMB (1A3), FMB (3B)

Submission: Proposals and beam time requests (BTRs) are submitted for three proposal cycles each year (refer to “Deadlines”).

Beam Time Request: Any amount of beam time can be requested, with typical allocations ranging from 9 to 18 shifts.

Proposed Research: Experiments should align with the research focus of the beamlines.

Review Process:

• Proposals are evaluated for scientific merit by external reviewers.
• Feasibility and safety are reviewed by CHESS staff.

Beam Time Allocation: Decisions made by the beam time allocation committee based on proposal scores.

Rapid Access Proposal Submission

Applicable Beamlines:

• MacCHESS: XBio / BioSAXS (7A), XBio / FlexX (7B2)
• MSN-C: SMB (1A3), FMB (3B)
• Note: CHEXS beamlines do not accept rapid access proposals.

Submission: Proposals and beamtime requests (BTRs) can be submitted at any time.

Beam Time Request: Short beam times, typically 3-6 shifts.

Proposed Research:

• Samples must be available or can be prepared on short notice.
• Experiments should align with the research focus of the beamlines.

Review Process:

• Proposals are evaluated for scientific merit by external reviewers.
• Feasibility and safety are reviewed by CHESS staff.
• Reviews are completed within 2 weeks of submission.

Beam Time Allocation: Decided by the beam time allocation committee based on proposal scores.

Scheduling: Beam time is continuously available for Rapid Access Proposals every month during a run cycle.

Beginning the Proposal Process

Once you’ve determined the details of your experiment and the beamline you wish to use, follow these steps to start the proposal process:

1. Register and Create a Profile:
   • Go to BeamPASS, register as a new user, and create your profile.
   • Once registered and person record is completed, you will see the main dashboard of BeamPASS.
2. Creating a Proposal:
   • Select "Create Proposal"
   • Complete all tabs/required fields before submission. (see above What is on the Proposal form?)
3. Proposal Submission and Beam Time Requests (BTRs):
   • Once submitted, the proposal will expire in 2 years.
   • Once the proposal's safety reviews are completed, the first beam time request (BTR) will be automatically created based on the run cycle selected in the proposal. (Referred to as proposal #-A, for example, 3456-A)
   • Subsequent BTRs must be submitted by you or a collaborator listed on the proposal to be eligible for beam time in future run cycles.  (Referred to as proposal #-B onward, for example, 3456-B, 3456-C, etc.)
   • Example: If your proposal is submitted for the first run cycle of the year (2024_1), we will automatically create the BTR for 2024_1. You need to log into BeamPASS and create BTRs (denoted by letter -b, -c, etc) for 2024_2 onward for beam time eligibility.
   • Note: Unscheduled BTRs are not saved for future cycles. Please submit a new beam time request (BTR) for eligibility. 

Additional Information:

• Deadlines: Check our deadlines page to learn more.
• Assistance: If you need help, contact the CHESS User Office at CHESSUserOffice@cornell.edu.

Submitting a proposal is the first step to accessing the CHEXS (Center for High Energy X-ray Sciences at CHESS), MacCHESS (Macromolecular X-ray science at CHESS), and MSN-C (Materials Solutions Network at CHESS) beamlines. Please read the details below for information about the proposal process. If you need assistance with any of these steps, please reach out to the CHESS User Office at CHESSUserOffice@cornell.edu.

Proposal deadlines can be found here.

CHEXS & MacCHESS

• To schedule in-person, remote, or mail-in access to a beamline you must first submit a proposal using BeamPASS.
• Once your proposal has been reviewed by safety and peers, we will submit a Beam Time Request (BTR) to the beamline you have indicated in your proposal.

Available Beamlines (Beamline capabilities can be found on the CHESS Beamline Directory.)

• PIPOXS beamline (ID2A) - CHEXS
• FAST beamline (ID3A) - CHEXS †
• QM2 beamline (ID4B) - CHEXS
• XBio / BioSAXS beamline (ID7A1) - CHEXS and MacCHESS
      Rapid Access Submissions are available for BioSAXS
• XBio / FlexX beamline (ID7B2) - CHEXS and MacCHESS
      Rapid Access Submissions are available for FlexX

MSN-C

If this is your first time submitting a proposal to an MSN-C beamline, please discuss your project prior to submission by contacting:

• SMB - Kelly Nygren (k.nygren@cornell.edu)
• FMB -  Peter Ko (peter.ko@cornell.edu), or Arthur Woll (aw30@cornell.edu)

Available Beamlines (Beamline capabilities can be found on the CHESS Beamline Directory.)

• SMB beamline (1A2,1A3) - MSN-C * †
• FMB beamline (3B) - MSN-C *

* These beamlines are prioritized for Department of Defense researchers and their affiliates.

† The Forming and Shaping Technologies (FAST) beamline at CHEXS also services the structural materials community and has an open, peer review proposal system. Depending on demand and proposal scores, we often honor a “hutch swap” with FAST to give users full access to the suite of experiments possible across both beamlines.

You can find more information for prospective and current users on our website.

• User Guide
• Proposal Deadlines
• X-Ray Run Schedule

For questions, please contact the CHESS User Office at CHESSUserOffice@cornell.edu.

Depending on the funding stakeholder associated with specific beamlines, proposals for the following beamlines will undergo a peer review process: PIPOXS (2A) , FAST (3A), QM2 (4B), XBio / BioSAXS (7A1), and XBio / FlexX (7B2).

However, proposals for Beamlines SMB beamline (1A2,1A3) and FMB beamline (3B) are exempt from peer review.

How is my proposal peer-reviewed?

• A peer review is conducted on your proposal by outside reviewers (2-3) and an average final score will be assigned to the proposal upon completion of the review(s). Your average score will be on a scale of 1-4, 1 being excellent and 4 being poor. The areas in which your proposal will be scored are:
• Scientific and or Technical Merit
• Appropriateness of the CHESS
• Experimental Plan Details
• Data analysis plan
• Broader Impacts
• Summary and Recommendation Comments

Please use the below as a rubric for writing proposals: 

Scientific and/or Technical Merit:

On a scale from Poor to Excellent, please evaluate the Scientific Merit of the proposed research, using the rubric below.

1. Excellent: Results will be impactful and important, ambitious and innovative

2. Very Good: Will advance scientific knowledge, methods, and/or address critical questions​

3. Good: Research contributes to a scientific and/or technical knowledge base​

4. Poor: Importance & originality of proposed research are low and/or unclear

Appropriateness of the facility​

​Please evaluate the appropriateness of the selected synchrotron x-ray facility as a venue for the proposed research, using the rubric below.​

1. Essential: The proposed research would not be possible without bright, high-energy synchrotron x-rays and/or the specific experimental capabilities which are available at CHESS​

2. ​Appropriate: The proposed research is well matched to the experimental capabilities of CHESS and could not be performed better elsewhere.​

3. Marginal: The proposed research could be equally well accomplished using other, more readily available techniques such as laboratory-based x-ray sources.​

4. Inappropriate: The proposed research is ill-suited to synchrotron facilities and/or the selected beamline and could be better accomplished using other experimental methods.​

Experimental Plan​

Please evaluate the experimental plan for quality, thoroughness, and appropriateness to answer the scientific questions used to motivate the work, using the rubric below.​

1. Complete: The experimental plan is detailed, demonstrates a clear understanding of the beamline capabilities, and the proposed measurements are very likely to answer the motivating scientific questions during the requested amount of beamtime. ​

2. ​Detailed: Most details of the proposed experiment are clear, and any omitted details should be easily addressed by consultation with beamline staff in advance of the experiment. Proposed measurements are likely to answer the motivating scientific questions.​

3. ​Partial: Significant details are lacking, and therefore, the likelihood of success is difficult to evaluate. Understanding of beamline capabilities is not clearly articulated.​

4. ​Inadequate: The proposed experimental plan is unlikely to address the motivating scientific questions, and/or the probability for success is low.

 Data analysis plan (NEW)​

​Please evaluate the data analysis plan for quality, thoroughness, and appropriateness to answer the scientific questions used to motivate the work, using the rubric below.​

1. ​Complete: The data analysis plan is sufficiently detailed and demonstrates a clear understanding of how the data can be analyzed to answer the motivating scientific questions. ​

2. Detailed: Most details of the data analysis plan are clear, and any omitted details should be easily addressed by consultation with beamline staff. ​

3. Partial: Significant details are lacking, and therefore, the likelihood of success is difficult to evaluate. It is unclear whether the data analysis methods have been sufficiently considered.​

4. Inadequate: The proposed data analysis plan is unfeasible and/or unlikely to address the motivating scientific questions, and/or the probability for success is low.

Broader Impacts (NEW)​

​On a scale from Unclear to Exceptional, please evaluate the Broader Impacts of the proposed research, using the rubric below. (The National Science Foundation considers “Broader Impacts” to be a critical component of any proposal. How does the proposed activity benefit society? Examples include impacts on STEM training and workforce development, national security and economic competitiveness, building partnerships, public engagement, increasing inclusiveness in STEM, and any other societal benefit that can be identified.​

1. ​Exceptional: Proposal identified clear societal benefits for this research, beyond the usual intellectual merit / impact on the specific research field.​

2. ​Standard: Proposed research will contribute to the general improvement to societal well-being associated with academic research in the field

3. ​Unclear: Proposal does not identify any societal benefits that will arise from this work

Summary and Recommendation (NEW)

Peer Reviewers also have two options for leaving comments on the proposal. ​

• ​Please summarize your overall evaluation of the proposal below, including whether the proposal team has the relevant expertise to successfully pursue the research. Suggestions for improvements and recommendations to increase the likelihood of success are also welcome. (These comments will be seen by the proposers.)​

• Optional Comments to the allocation committee and beamline staff scientists. (These comments will not be seen by the proposers.)​

Low Proposal Rating Guidance

If your proposal was rated poorly (with 1 being the best and 4 being the worst), please:

1. Review the Criteria:
   • Ensure all necessary details are included.
   • Confirm that the selected beamline(s) are the best fit for your research.
2. Seek Feedback:
   • Contact the CHESS User Office to request any comments left by reviewers.
   • Reach out to the beamline scientist to discuss potential improvements or capabilities.

Important Notes:

• Proposals ranked poorly will not receive beam time.
• Beam Time Requests (BTRs) are not peer-reviewed and retain the same score as the proposal.
• If your proposal was rated poorly, we recommend making the necessary improvements and submitting a new proposal for review.
• DO NOT INCLUDE SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION AND EXPERIMENTAL PLAN IN ATTACHMENTS. All text should be input into the proposal form. 

Initiating a Beam Time Request (BTR)

Valid Proposal Requirement:

• A valid proposal is required to initiate a BTR.
• Accepted proposals remain valid for two years from the date of submission.
• The first BTR is automatically generated upon proposal submission.
• Users are responsible for creating BTRs for subsequent run cycles.

Updating Proposal Details:

• Review and update details such as sample information, buffers, solutions, and equipment needs.
• Updates will undergo a safety review.

Experimental Plan:

• While the proposal may cover a 2-year plan, the BTR should clearly state the specific activities planned for the current run cycle if granted beam time.

Submitting a BTR:

1. Log into BeamPASS.
2. Navigate to "My Beamtime Requests".
3. Click on "Start a New Beam Time Request".
4. Select the active proposal from the drop-down menu and complete the necessary information.

For additional guidance or assistance, please contact the CHESS User Office at CHESSUserOffice@cornell.edu.

Beam Time Availability:

• The total beam time each cycle is a combination of time for commissioning, maintenance, upgrades, and user experiments.
• Each cycle, beamlines may allocate a fraction of their time for specific technique experiments. Schedulers allocate appropriate proposals accordingly.

Scheduling Process:

• After the proposal and BTR submission deadline, scheduling begins in earnest by the Beamline Scientist and schedulers.
• Each beamline scientist is responsible for scheduling their respective beamline.
• Users are notified of scheduling confirmation through BeamPASS and emails from the CHESS User Office and/or Beamline Scientists.