While ancient scientists often had patrons to fund their work, peer review of proposals for the allocation of resources is a foundation of modern science. A very common method is that proposals are evaluated by a small panel of experts (due to logistics and funding limitations) nominated by the grant-giving institutions. The expert panel process introduces several issues - most notably: 1) biases introduced in the selection of the panel. 2) experts have to read a very large number of proposals. Distributed Peer Review promises to alleviate several of the described problems by distributing the task of reviewing among the proposers. Each proposer is given a limited number of proposals to review and rank. We present the result of an experiment running a machine-learning enhanced distributed peer review process for allocation of telescope time at the European Southern Observatory. In this work, we show that the distributed peer review is statistically the same as a `traditional' panel, that our machine learning algorithm can predict expertise of reviewers with a high success rate, and we find that seniority and reviewer expertise have an influence on review quality. The general experience has been overwhelmingly praised from the participating community (using an anonymous feedback mechanism).

The ESO telescope bibliography (telbib) dates back to 1996. During the 20+ years of its existence, it has undergone many changes. Most importantly, the telbib system has been enhanced to cater to new use cases and demands from its stakeholders. Based on achievements of the past, we will show how a system like telbib can not only stay relevant through the decades, but gain importance, and provide an essential tool for the observatory's management and the wider user community alike.

One of the classic ways to measure the success of a scientific facility is the publication return, which is defined as the number of refereed papers produced per unit of allocated resources (for example, telescope time or proposals). The recent studies by Sterzik et al. (2015, 2016) have shown that 30-50 % of the programmes allocated time at ESO do not produce a refereed publication. While this may be inherent to the scientific process, this finding prompted further investigation. For this purpose, ESO conducted a Survey of Non-Publishing Programmes (SNPP) within the activities of the Time Allocation Working Group, similar to the monitoring campaign that was recently implemented at ALMA (Stoehr et al. 2016). The SNPP targeted 1278 programmes scheduled between ESO Periods 78 and 90 (October 2006 to March 2013) that had not published a refereed paper as of April 2016. The poll was launched on 6 May 2016, remained open for four weeks, and returned 965 valid responses. This article summarises and discusses the results of this survey, the first of its kind at ESO.

Using the ESO Telescope Bibliography database telbib, we have investigated the percentage of ESO data papers that were submitted to the arXiv/astro-ph e-print server and that are therefore free to read. Our study revealed an availability of up to 96% of telbib papers on arXiv over the years 2010 to 2017. We also compared the citation counts of arXiv vs. non-arXiv papers and found that on average, papers submitted to arXiv are cited 2.8 times more often than those not on arXiv. While simulations suggest that these findings are statistically significant, we cannot yet draw firm conclusions as to the main cause of these differences.