1. User Programs Committee on Visitors, Appeals Process, Unified Access & Feedback

2. Committee on Visitors Internal reviews provides – fast turnaround, flexibility, ability rapidly respond to new science, flexibly dovetail user requests with MagLab timing and upgrades. Opens conflict of interest questions… Proposed Committee on Visitors to address this issue (based on reviews of NSF panel process)

3. Committee on Visitors (2) Drawn from users and non-users Non-users preferentially from other user communities Meet once during a 5 yr funding period Committee will review processes and assess appropriateness for fairness and transparency. Committee will examine both successful and unsuccessful proposals and assess fairness of magnet time assignments. Report findings in open document to MagLab management

4. Appeals Process A scientist who is denied magnet time has the right to appeal the decision. The Magnet Time Appeals Committee is comprised of the Director of the NHMFL, the Chair of the NHMFL User Committee (or his/her designee) and one additional member of the NHMFL User Committee who is an ad hoc selection, based upon his/her knowledge of the science in the unsuccessful proposal under appeal.

5. Appeals Process The appeals committee will review the unsuccessful proposal in the context of competing proposals, both accepted and rejected, as well as the total amount of magnet time distributed to users in the relevant user program(s). The appeals committee will report its decision to the appealing scientist and the relevant User Program Head(s). A summary of the appeal and decision will be made at the next NHMFL Users Committee meeting.

6. Appeals Process The appeals committee has wide latitude in its data- collection and decision-making. It can endorse the denial of magnet time, direct that magnet time be granted as a high priority at the earliest possible date (potentially displacing a lower priority user), or direct that the proposal receive magnet time in the next allocation of magnet time. If the appeals committee overturns a denial of magnet time, it will explicitly consider whether to provide feedback to the relevant User Program Head(s) to address any perceived bias in assigning magnet time.

7. Feedback DC Fields emails PI asking for feedback from each group the week after their magnet time Other user programs get feedback informally Feedback will a more formal part of all the user programs Feedback only useful if the gain is high enough!

8. Each user facility will review, rank, schedule and manage its own time according to established protocols. Proposal: Approaching Unified User Access and Reporting All NHMFL users enter the system through the same web portal All users submit a project summary and provide demographic data The project proposal sent to the appropriate program Common reporting, user feedback and surveys, and publication records