ARS Peer Review Process Making scientific quality review work for you

1. ARS Peer Review Process Making scientific quality review work for you Ed Cleveland Scientific Quality Review Officer (SQRO) Office of Scientific Quality Review (OSQR)

2. Creation of OSQR 1998 Farm Bill ARS research peer- reviewed every 5 years Most review panelists external to ARS Satisfactory review before beginning research

3. Congressional Mandate Stakeholder Workshop National Program Action Plan Program Assessment Input Input PDRAM Assess Plan Project Plan Outline Annual review Implement Research Project Plan Peer Review Research initiated Certification

4. COOPERATION BETWEEN ALL LEVELS DURING PROJECT PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS EXTERNAL REVIEW INTERNAL REVIEW RESEARCH TEAM (individual scientists) OSQR OUTSIDE REVIEW PANELS Internal dialogue and cooperation is essential AREA OFFICE NATIONAL PROGRAM STAFF Review is a dialogue: Panel Recommendations and ARS Responses

5. Congressional Mandate Stakeholder Workshop National Program Action Plan Program Assessment Input Input PDRAM Assess Plan Project Plan Outline Annual review Implement Research Project Plan Peer Review Research initiated Certification

6. Goal of Peer Review Enhance research through independent, expert examination of PROSPECTIVE plans for scientific and technical merit. Not an evaluation of the ARS, its mission, National Programs, project budgets, or personnel management OSQR

7. Context of Peer Review • Research must be relevant to an ARS National Program Action Plan • Primary driver is the need to solve a problem, not investigator curiosity or idea novelty • Projects are not in competition for funding • Evaluation generates an “Action Class” and recommendations for improving. • Research plan must receive a passing Action Class in order to proceed. OSQR

8. Peer Reviews Provide external review by peers of the quality of a prospective project plan Identify potential areas where impact of scientific effort can be increased Increase the awareness of the quality and extent of ARS research programs

9. What is Reviewed? Adequacy of Approach and Procedures Probability of Successfully Accomplishing the Project’s Objectives Merit and Significance OSQR

10. No revision Excellent, no change needed Minor revision very good, a few modifications required Moderate revision Good, but has some important areas to address Major revision required Requires significant changes or additions Not feasible Major flaws or not possible to assess Action Classes OSQR

11. Project Plan Review vs. Peer Review of an Original Research Article OSQR Review Like Review of a Paper for Publication (strong advisory component) - “Editor” = SQRO - Two outcomes 1. Publish after revision as monitored by the “editor” (SQRO). Reviewers clear on what researchers are planning (minor gaps in info). (no, minor, moderate revision) 2. Publish after revision and reexamination by both reviewers and SQRO. Reviewers not at all clear about what researchers are planning (major gaps in info). (major revision, not feasible)

12. Frequent Panel Comments • Hypotheses are poorly constructed and unclear • Lack of appropriate detail in Approach, Procedure and Experimental Design • Weak or no connection between project objectives • Readability, narrative flow, rationale for research not developed • Role of project team members, including collaborators, not well-defined • Milestones and timelines vague • Perfunctory Contingency Plans • Project management and progress evaluation not documented See Statistician Provide Diagram Tie Contingencies to Milestones OSQR

13. Hypotheses Most research in ARS is hypothesis-driven. Make sure these are credible, scientifically testable (i.e., falsifiable) hypotheses related to the objectives. One of the most frequent comments OSQR receives from reviewers is that the plans do not contain real, testable, hypotheses. Get advice from Statistician.

14. What Is a Real Hypothesis? Definitions: “A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event.” “It is an assumption written in a clear, concise manner about what you think will happen in your project” “A hypothesis is a logical supposition, a reasonable guess, an educated conjecture”

15. The value of a well constructed hypothesis is to provide direction for your project, keep your investigation focused, and forces one to think about what results to look for in an experiment. The development of a good hypothesis is not always an easy task, but without it, you may collect aimless data. Take the time to refine your hypothesis so you collect pertinent data. Remember the hypothesis keeps you a seeker of pertinent knowledge. Debbie Boykin, Statistician MSA

16. Hypothesis Problems • Hypotheses that are too complex, i.e., these are statements with “and” and “or” that essentially make the hypothesis a compound hypothesis, rendering it very difficult if not impossible to really test and reject because part might be rejected and part might not. • Wiggle words. A hypothesis with “may” or “might” or “could” cannot be rejected; it’s true no matter what result you get. • Misdirectedhypotheses about the researchers themselves. These say things like “Discovering the mechanism behind X will enable us to…….” This tests the abilities of the researchers to take information and do something with it. Instead, the hypothesis should focus on the experimental system itself.

17. More problems • Hypotheses that are statements of the obvious, or are scientifically trivial. “Disease results from expression of genes for virulence in the pathogen and genes for susceptibility in the host.” • Too global. “Quantifying X will provide significant increases in income for the industry.” Can any 5-year project plan in ARS really test this?

18. A Hypothesis is not always needed... Some research is not hypothesis-driven. This is acceptable. Examples are some types of engineering work and model development (Even in these, however, there may be a basis for hypothesis testing, e.g., testing whether a particular modification in a model provides a quantifiable improvement in how well the model predicts some real phenomenon). If stating a hypothesis is not appropriate, be sure the goal or target of the work is clear.

19. Frequent Panel Comments • Hypotheses are poorly constructed and unclear • Lack of appropriate detail in Approach, Procedure and Experimental Design • Weak or no connection between project objectives • Readability, narrative flow, rationale for research not developed • Role of project team members, including collaborators, not well-defined • Milestones and timelines vague • Perfunctory Contingency Plans • Project management and progress evaluation not documented OSQR

20. What is a picture worth?

21. Cohesiveness ……does the plan credibly describe a cohesive,integrated project, or does it look “stove piped” with respect to how the objectives and personnel interact? It is important to describe a multi-personnel project in which the work hangs together into an integrated whole. Your plan should reflect how the work all comes together to accomplish the overall goals and objectives of the project.

22. Frequent Panel Comments • Hypotheses are poorly constructed and unclear • Lack of appropriate detail in Approach, Procedure and Experimental Design • Weak or no connection between project objectives • Readability, narrative flow, rationale for research not developed • Role of project team members, including collaborators, not well-defined • Milestones and timelines vague • Perfunctory Contingency Plans • Project management and progress evaluation not documented OSQR

24. Writing a Clear PlanA well-done plan presents the “take home” message from its opening pages. What is the problem? Why is it important? Where are you going with it? How are you going to get there? And how will you know you have arrived? This should be in brief on the opening pages

25. Correct Grammar and Spelling are Important…but not enough Be sure your plan presents a clear, logical, path to success…at the outset and through the document. Have scientific peers outside your project and Unit read the plan for understandability.

26. Frequent Panel Comments • Hypotheses are poorly constructed and unclear • Lack of appropriate detail in Approach, Procedure and Experimental Design • Weak or no connection between project objectives • Readability, narrative flow, rationale for research not developed • Role of project team members, including collaborators, not well-defined • Milestones and timelines vague • Perfunctory Contingency Plans • Project management and progress evaluation not documented OSQR

27. Milestones A Milestone is a MARKER that allows you to measure or assess your progress. Used in the ancient world to gauge distance from Rome Complete a database on ……. Determine the accuracy and bounds of uncertainty of a model……. Complete all work for a paper on….. Complete the second year of a two-year experiment on….. Complete the laboratory analyses for field samples collected last summer… Deliver data from resistance trials to a breeder who will………

28. Weak Milestones Continue studies on… Cannot tell what threshold would determine success on this Develop understanding of… Understanding is a fleeting goal easily overturned by new information Plan a study that… Planning is an ongoing activity for all scientists. Initiate experiment on… Could be as simple as a dated entry in a notebook.

29. Contingencies One good approach to Contingencies is to link the section explicitly with Milestones that you specify in the Milestones table that comes later in the Plan. The Milestone might be acquiring either positive or negative data/results. If you create good Milestones that serve as decision points along the way, then Contingencies are the decisions that come as a result of achieving those Milestones.

30. Lead Scientist and Scientist Roles and Responsibilities • Responsible for plan development and implementation (Lead scientist) • Evaluate and document progress through the five-year cycle • Interface with stakeholders providing information on impacts • Prepare research papers and summaries of findings

31. COOPERATION BETWEEN ALL LEVELS DURING PROJECT PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS EXTERNAL REVIEW INTERNAL REVIEW RESEARCH TEAM (individual scientists) OSQR OUTSIDE REVIEW PANELS Internal dialogue and cooperation is essential AREA OFFICE NATIONAL PROGRAM STAFF Review is a dialogue: Panel Recommendations and ARS Responses

32. Roles and Responsibilities NPS--Program Direction (Dialogue, Coordination, Synthesize Objectives) Everyone has responsibility for quality of Project Plans Research Team Ensure Quality, Science Input Lead Scientist Research Leader Laboratory Director Ensure Quality, Management Viewpoint Area Leadership OSQR Panel

33. Project Plans Annual Reports (421’s) Annual Performance Project Plans are Linked to Team and Individual Performance Impact of Science, RPES Project Plan development forces thoughtful attention to project planning (hypotheses, experimental design, statistics, milestones and contingencies) which can enhance research and career success.

34. Another way to look at it… You may enjoy a 30-year career with ARS. Over that time the government may support project research with $20-30 million. Six times in that career you will be asked what you are doing with the government’s money.

35. OSQR RESOURCES • Training Focusing More on What to Look For During • INTERNAL REVIEW to Increase Quality of Plans • Training of NP Scientists after PDRAMs Issued • New SY Training • Leadership Training • New Research Leader Training • Stakeholder Workshop Training • Area SY Training (SAA done, MWA future) • Training on Web-site…new items added regularly • NEW: Workshop for all the Area Offices’ Project Plan reviewers (continue with periodic on-line training)

36. Project Plans The foundation of ARS research Link to performance and impact of individual and team Reflect project team’s scientific expertise OSQR

37. The new OSQR Manual • Shorter by 30-35 percent (main part >25 pages) • More guidance on writing and presentation • Format not quite a rigid • (we care more about readability than if you use Times Roman) • PPO replaces prospectus • Reflects lessons learned over the years • Information on areas of concern to reviewers highlighted • Formal Agency review will begin shortly. • (copies will be reviewed by all Areas and NPS) • Anticipate release by FY08 (October 1).

38. National Program Project Plan External Review Stakeholder Input Research team Scientific Impact Foundation of Project Plan Development

39. Roles and Responsibilities Program Direction National Program Leaders Set the objectives (in dialogue with research team) Project Team Scientists Lead Scientists Research Leaders Prepare Project Plan Management Research Leaders Center/Laboratory Directors Area Directors Ensure quality OSQR