slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Office of Scientific Quality Review Dr. Joyce Loper, Scientific Quality Review Officer Dr. Michael Strauss, Peer Revie PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Office of Scientific Quality Review Dr. Joyce Loper, Scientific Quality Review Officer Dr. Michael Strauss, Peer Revie

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 32

Office of Scientific Quality Review Dr. Joyce Loper, Scientific Quality Review Officer Dr. Michael Strauss, Peer Revie - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 185 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Office of Scientific Quality Review Dr. Joyce Loper, Scientific Quality Review Officer Dr. Michael Strauss, Peer Revie' - roland


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Office of Scientific Quality Review

Dr. Joyce Loper, Scientific Quality Review Officer

Dr. Michael Strauss, Peer Review Coordinator

agricultural research service
In-house research

Farm-to-table scope

18 National Programs

1,000+ projects

2,000 scientists

100 labs

$1B annual budget

Agricultural Research Service
setting research priorities
Setting Research Priorities
  • Stakeholder input
  • Program planning cycle
slide7

4

Input

3

5 years of Research

5

Planning

of next 5-

years

2

1

slide8

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

what makes project plans unique
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

like review of a manuscript
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)

creation of osqr
Creation of OSQR

1998 Farm Bill

  • ARS research peer-reviewed every 5 years
  • Most review panelists external to ARS
  • Satisfactory review before beginning research
slide12

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

project plans not proposals
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?

slide14

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

slide15

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.

panel functions
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

conflicts of interest guidelines
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
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

review criteria
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?

action class ratings
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.

products for project team onp area
ProductsFor Project Team, ONP & Area

Summary Action Class Score

Panel (Consensus) Recommendations

panelist review form
Panelist Review Form

Primary and Secondary Reviewers complete this

panelist review form25
Panelist Review Form

Before your meeting OSQR will edit/cut & paste these to produce the a draft consensus recommendation…

what happens after review researcher
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

what happens after review researcher27
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)
logistics online panels
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
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 resources
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

what next
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

slide32

Input

Input

Assessment

Planning

Implementation

Review