1 / 32

Office of Scientific Quality Review Dr. Joyce Loper, Scientific Quality Review Officer Dr. Michael Strauss, Peer Revie

Office of Scientific Quality Review Dr. Joyce Loper, Scientific Quality Review Officer Dr. Michael Strauss, Peer Review Coordinator. In-house research Farm-to-table scope 18 National Programs 1,000+ projects 2,000 scientists 100 labs $1B annual budget. Agricultural Research Service.

roland
Download Presentation

Office of Scientific Quality Review Dr. Joyce Loper, Scientific Quality Review Officer Dr. Michael Strauss, Peer Revie

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 Dr. Joyce Loper, Scientific Quality Review Officer Dr. Michael Strauss, Peer Review Coordinator

  2. In-house research Farm-to-table scope 18 National Programs 1,000+ projects 2,000 scientists 100 labs $1B annual budget Agricultural Research Service

  3. ARS Locations

  4. Setting Research Priorities • Stakeholder input • Program planning cycle

  5. 4 Input 3 5 years of Research 5 Planning of next 5- years 2 1

  6. Stakeholder Needs National Needs National Plan Assignment of Objectives by National Program Leader Researchers write 5-year plan for research Outside Scientific Review 5- year Research Program begun Research does not go forward

  7. What Makes Project Plans Unique? Directed Research Objectives 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

  8. Like Review of a Manuscript Document should present a logical, coherent narrative with a clear path for the research. - “Editor” = SQRO - Three outcomes 1. Publish as presented (no revision) 2. Publish after revision as monitored by the “editor” (SQRO). Reviewers clear on what researchers are planning (minor gaps in info). (minor, moderate revision) 3. 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)

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

  10. National Programs Crop Production and Protection Nutrition, Food Safety, and Quality Animal Production and Protection Natural Res. & Sust. Agric. Systems 101. Food Animal Production 103. Animal Health 104. Veterinary, Medical, and Urban Entomology 106. Aquaculture 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 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

  11. 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?

  12. Document Overview Title and Investigator(s)………….page 1 Signature Page……………...........page 2 Table of Contents……….………….page 3 Project summary (250 words)...page 4 Objectives...…..……..................page 5 Need for research ...................(1-2 p) Scientific Background ..............(5-7 p) Prior Accomplishments ….........(1-3 p) Approach & Procedures............(6-15 p) Milestone Table Literature Cited Past Accomplishments of Project Team Issues of Concern statements Appendices (letters plus other material) Whole document on a flash drive Let us know if you want paper copies instead. OSQR

  13. Document Overview Several Objectives or subobjectives with low page limit may restrict detail. Title and Investigators..………….page 1 Signature Page……………...........page 2 Table of Contents……….………….page 3 Project summary (250 words)...page 4 Objectives...………….................page 5 Need for research………………....(1-2 p) Scientific Background…………....(5-7 p) Prior Accomplishments………....(1-3 p) Approach & Procedures………...(6-15 p) Milestone Table Literature Cited Past Accomplishments of Project Team Issues of Concern statements Appendices (letters plus other material) This section is limited to maximum of 15 (<2) to 30 (>7) pages depending upon number of researchers. See Peer Review Guidelines in Red Folder for page limits.

  14. Panel Functions Panel is NOT reviewing National Program direction, objectives or funding ROLES Chair Guides process, selects panel, 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 Consensus recommendations of panel Assessment Component Score based on average of individual panelist ratings

  15. 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!

  16. Review Process (online) Primary Reviewer brief overview Secondary Reviewer additional comment Panel Discussion Assessment Component TO SQR OFFICER Action Class Scoring By Each Panelist Advisory Component Panel Chair Validates Recommendations OSQR combines all comments received Panel discusses and edits comments online

  17. 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?

  18. 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 ornot possible to assess.

  19. ProductsFor Project Team, ONP & Area Summary Action Class Score Panel (Consensus) Recommendations

  20. Panelist Review Form Primary and Secondary Reviewers complete this

  21. Panelist Review Form

  22. Panelist Review Form

  23. Panelist Review Form Before your meeting OSQR will edit/cut & paste these to produce the a draft consensus recommendation…

  24. What Happens After Review?(Researcher) 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

  25. What Happens After Review?(Researcher) • No, Minor or ModerateRevision • Lead 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)

  26. 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.

  27. 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

  28. Peer Review Resources OSQR Web Site www.ars.usda.gov/osqr Office of National Programs www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs OSQR Staff: Mike Strauss – mike.strauss@ars.usda.gov Chris Woods – christina.woods@ars.usda.gov Linda Daly-Lucas – linda.dalylucas@ars.usda.gov General email – osqr@ars.usda.gov

  29. 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 intramuralreviews@ars.usda.gov

  30. Input Input Assessment Planning Implementation Review

More Related