Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Office of Scientific Quality ReviewDr. Joyce Loper, Scientific Quality Review Officer
Dr. Michael Strauss, Peer Review Coordinator
In-house researchFarm-to-table scope18 National Programs1,000+ projects 2,000 scientists100 labs$1B annual budget
Agricultural Research Service
ARS Locations
• Stakeholder input
• Program planning cycle
Setting Research Priorities
Input
5 years of Research
2
1
5
4
3
Planning
of next 5-
years
Stakeholder Needs
National Needs
National Plan
Assignment of Objectives by National Program Leader
Researchers write 5-year plan for research
Outside Scientific Review Research does
not go forward5- year Research Program begun
What Makes Project Plans Unique?
Directed Research Objectives set through internal planning processes
Funds already allocated for researchMay be large and with collaborators Range of disciplines, locations, scientists
Long-term 5-year horizon with contingencies
Like Review of a ManuscriptDocument should present a logical, coherent
narrative with a clear path for the research.
- “Editor” = SQRO
- Three outcomes1. Publish as presented (no revision)
2. Publish after revision as monitoredby the “editor” (SQRO). Reviewers clear on whatresearchers are planning (minor gaps in info).(minor, moderate revision)
3. Publish after revision and reexamination by both reviewers and SQRO. Reviewers not at allclear about what researchers are planning (majorgaps in info). (major revision, not feasible)
1998 Farm Bill ARS research peer-
reviewed every 5 years
Most review panelists external to ARS
Satisfactory review before beginning research
Creation of OSQR
National ProgramsCrop
Production and Protection
Nutrition, Food Safety, and
Quality
301. Plant Genetic Resources, Genomics & Genetic Improvement
303. Plant Diseases
304. Crop Protection & Quarantine
305. Crop Production
308. Methyl Bromide Alternatives
107. Human Nutrition
108. Food Safety (animal & plant products)
306. Quality & Utilization of Agricultural Products
Animal Production and
Protection
Natural Res. & Sust. Agric.
Systems
101. Food Animal Production
103. Animal Health
104. Veterinary, Medical, and Urban Entomology
106. Aquaculture
211. Water Availability & Water Management
212 . Climate Change, Soils and Emissions
213. Bioenergy & Energy Alternatives
214. Agricultural & Industrial Byproducts
215. Pasture, Forage, Turf and Range Land Systems
216. Agricultural System Competitive-ness & Sustainability
Project Plans not Proposals
Not Proposals for researchSubject/objectives established by process
Funding decisions made by plan or mandatePanels do not evaluate budgets
Plan for ResearchPanel assesses if plan adequate to address problem
Assessment of ImpactWill research produce new information or understanding?
Title and Investigator(s)………….page 1Signature Page……………...........page 2Table of Contents……….………….page 3Project summary (250 words)...page 4Objectives...…..……..................page 5 Need for research ...................(1-2 p)Scientific Background ..............(5-7 p)Prior Accomplishments ….........(1-3 p)Approach & Procedures............(6-15 p)Milestone TableLiterature CitedPast Accomplishments of Project TeamIssues of Concern statementsAppendices (letters plus other material)
OSQR
Document Overview
Whole document on a flash
drive
Let us know if you want
paper copies instead.
Title and Investigators..………….page 1Signature Page……………...........page 2Table of Contents……….………….page 3Project summary (250 words)...page 4Objectives...………….................page 5 Need for research………………....(1-2 p)Scientific Background…………....(5-7 p)Prior Accomplishments………....(1-3 p)Approach & Procedures………...(6-15 p)Milestone TableLiterature CitedPast Accomplishments of Project TeamIssues of Concern statementsAppendices (letters plus other material)
Document Overview
This section is limited to maximum of 15 (<2) to 30 (>7)
pages depending upon number of
researchers.
Several Objectives or subobjectives with low page
limit may restrict detail.
See Peer Review
Guidelines in Red Folder for
page limits.
Panel FunctionsPanel is NOT reviewing
National Program direction, objectives or funding
ROLES
Chair Guides process, selects panel, and serves as a panel memberPanelists Serve as primary and secondary reviewers as designated by chair
and provide comments in discussion of all plans.Products
Advisory ComponentConsensus recommendations of panel
Assessment ComponentScore based on average of individual panelist ratings
Conflicts of Interest Guidelines
Collaboration with project scientist within last FOUR years.
Thesis, dissertation, advisor or graduate student/postdoc association within last EIGHT years.
Institutional or Consulting affiliation.
Financial gain from project.
If you feel you have a conflict concerning a particular project, you should not participate
in its discussion or rate it…
…but let us know!
Review Process (online)
Primary Reviewerbrief overview
Secondary Revieweradditional comment
Panel Discussion
Action Class ScoringBy Each Panelist
TO SQROFFICER
OSQR combinesall comments
received
Panel ChairValidates
Recommendations
Advisory Compon
ent
Assessment
Component
Panel discusses andedits comments
online
Review Criteria
Adequacy of ApproachAre the research plan and procedures appropriate? Is there sufficient information to understand the procedure proposed? Does the plan display understanding of the technologies and methodologies proposed? Are the roles of researchers and collaborators clearly presented. Does the overall plan present a clear, logical, experimental design? Is the plan well-written and clear?
Probability of SuccessIs the plan likely to lead to success or, if successful will it produce significant new knowledge (If there is a significant risk of failure, are the risks justified by the potential payoffs?)?
Merit and SignificanceWill this lead to new information, new findings, or new understandings? What would be the impact of this work on stakeholders? Society? Agriculture?
Action Class RatingsNo Revision
Excellent project. No changes or additions are required.
Minor RevisionApproach sound. Some minor changes required
Moderate RevisionSome change to an approach required but project is generally feasible.
Major RevisionRequires significant revision. Major gaps in plan or information.
Not FeasibleMajor flaws, omissions. Unfeasible or not possible to assess.
ProductsFor Project Team, ONP & Area
Summary Action Class Score
Panel (Consensus) Recommendations
Panelist Review Form
Primary and Secondary Reviewers complete this
Panelist Review Form
Panelist Review Form
Panelist Review Form
Before your meeting OSQR will edit/cut & paste these to
produce the a draft consensus
recommendation…
The Impact of Vertically Striped Voles (VSV) on Wheat, Rye, and Egg Production
R. U. Kidding 1321-38000-123-00D 1/5/2006
Frontiers of Vole Biology and Relativity Theory
What Happens After Review?(Researcher)
What Happens After Review?(Researcher)
No, Minor or Moderate RevisionLead Scientist responds to comments. Scientific Quality Review Officer certifies compliance with committee recommendations.
Major Revision or Not Feasible Lead Scientist revises and responds to comments. Examined by panel (Web-based meeting).Scientific Quality Review Officer certifies.
Projects are reviewed no more than two times(once after initial review)
Logistics Online Panels
Online Meeting Software
What you are using for this briefing…
Use same logon information.
No need to log-on to upload patches if you use the same computer.
Re-reviews for all panels …will also use this online system.
Honorarium
-File required paperwork.(we have this already)
-75-100% at end of initial review meeting.
-If needed, balance at conclusion of re-review meeting
Peer Review ResourcesOSQR Web Site
www.ars.usda.gov/osqr
Office of National Programs www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs
OSQR Staff:Mike Strauss – [email protected] Woods – [email protected] Daly-Lucas – [email protected] email – [email protected]
What Next?
Read through all projects you have/will receive making notes for discussion.
Complete a Review form (on flash drive)… …for those for which you are primary or secondary reviewer. When asked, email reviews to [email protected]
Input
Implementation
Planning
Assessment
Input
Review
