1 / 35

An Introduction to OSQR

gen
Download Presentation

An Introduction to OSQR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Office of Scientific Quality Review USDA-ARS Science Officer: Dr. Don Knowles Project Coordinator: Dr. Michael Strauss An Introduction to OSQR

    2. In-house research Farm-to-table scope 21 National Programs 1,100+ projects 2,100 scientists 100 labs $1B annual budget Agricultural Research Service

    4. ARS Mission Conduct research to develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems of high national priority and provide information access and dissemination to: Ensure high quality, safe food and other products Assess the nutritional needs of Americans Sustain a competitive agricultural economy Enhance the natural resource base and the environment Provide economic opportunities to rural citizens and society as a whole.

    5. Stakeholder input Program planning cycle Setting Research Priorities

    6. ARS Stakeholders (“customers”) Federal Agencies (FDA, EPA, etc.) Producers (farmers, growers, ranchers) Industry Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) State and Local Governments Consumers

    8. What Makes Project Plans Unique? Directed Research Objectives/subobjectives set through internal planning processes Funds already allocated for research May be large and with collaborators Range of disciplines, locations, scientists Long-term 5-year horizon with contingencies

    9. Review Purpose and Goals Provide ARS with external peer review of prospective project plans. Showcase and improve the quality and breadth of ARS research. Foster the improving of ARS research and project plans. Redirection of research funds to areas of greatest likelihood of success and impact. Review of all ARS research once every 5 years.

    10. 1998 Farm Bill ARS research peer-reviewed every 5 years Most review panelists external to ARS Satisfactory review before beginning research Creation of OSQR The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB) provides advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and land-grant colleges and universities on top priorities and policies for food and agricultural research, education, extension and economics. The Board is made up of 31 members, each of which represents a specific category of U.S. agricultural stakeholders, as mandated by Congress. The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB) provides advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and land-grant colleges and universities on top priorities and policies for food and agricultural research, education, extension and economics. The Board is made up of 31 members, each of which represents a specific category of U.S. agricultural stakeholders, as mandated by Congress.

    11. Panel Functions Panel is NOT reviewing National Program direction, or funding (but may comment on objectives!) ROLES Chair Guides process and serves as a panel member Panelists Serve as primary and secondary reviewers as designated by chair and provide comments in discussion of all plans. Products Advisory Component Primary prepares consensus advice Assessment Component By law each panelist (including chair) rates each plan

    12. Conflicts of Interest 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!

    13. Project Plans not Proposals Not Proposals for research Subject/objectives established by process Funding decisions made by plan or mandate Panels do not evaluate budgets Plan for Research Panel assesses if plan adequate to address problem Assessment of Impact Will research produce new information or understanding?

    15. Review Process (in person)

    16. Review Process (online)

    17. Ad Hoc Reviews Provide Additional Expertise Identified by Chair or panelists Invited by OSQR Staff Ad Hoc Reviewers DO NOT attend panel meetings. Action Class Rating of Ad Hoc Reviewers NOT included in final panel score.

    18. Review Criteria Adequacy of Approach Are 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 Success Is 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 Significance Will this lead to new information, new findings, or new understandings? What would be the impact of this work on stakeholders? Society? Agriculture?

    19. Action Class Ratings No Revision Excellent project. No changes or additions are required. Minor Revision Approach sound. Some minor changes required Moderate Revision Some change to an approach required but project is generally feasible. Major Revision Requires significant revision. Major gaps in plan or information. Not Feasible Major flaws, omissions. Unfeasible or not possible to assess.

    20. What Happens After Review? (Researcher)

    21. Products For Project Team, NPS & Area Summary Action Class Score Panel (Consensus) Recommendations

    22. Action Class Rating Form

    23. Action Class Rating Form

    24. Action Class Rating Form

    25. Panelist Review Form

    26. Panelist Review Form

    27. Panelist Review Form

    28. Panelist Review Form

    29. Panel Recommendation Form

    30. What Happens After Review? (Panel)

    31. What Happens After Review? (Researcher)

    32. After Panel ARS Response If the composite Action Class is No revision required Minor Revision Moderate Revision (Revised Plan reviewed by SQRO) If a Major Revision -- Re-Review by Panel If a Not Feasible – Revise for re-review, Postpone for personnel, terminate

    33. After the Review

    34. Peer Review Resources OSQR Web Site www.ars.usda.gov/osqr National Program Staff www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs OSQR Staff: Mike Strauss – mike.strauss@ars.usda.gov Chris Woods – christina.woods@ars.usda.gov Linda Fuller – linda.fuller@ars.usda.gov General email – osqr@ars.usda.gov

More Related