USDA Agricultural Research Service Office of Scientific Quality Review Panelist Orientation 2018 A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW
Agenda USDA – ARS in context ARS – About us ARS Research Priorities How we set them How these lead to project plan objectives ARS Peer Review Why OSQR? Not a grant decision! Panelist Responsibilities OSQR Resources A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE 2 O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW
USDA Structure - Where is ARS? A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE 3 O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW
Research, Education, and Economics Vacant Under-Secretary Chavonda Jacobs - Young Acting Deputy Under Secretary ARS NIFA ERS NASS Chavonda Jacobs - Young Scott Angle Huber Hamer Chris Hartley Administrator Director Acting Administrator Administrator A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE 4 O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW
ARS Profile • In-house science research arm of • 690 projects USDA • 2,000 scientists and post docs • Farm-to-table research scope • 6,000 + other employees • Information and technology • 90+ laboratories transfer • ~$1.1 billion annual budget • Administration and stakeholder • Partnerships with universities and priority setting process industry • National Programs in Plants, • International collaborations Animals, Nutrition, Natural Resources A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 5
ARS Areas A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 6
. A dministrator's C ouncil . . A gricultural R esearch S ervice . . Steven Kappes Chavonda Jacobs - Young Simon Liu Associate Administrator Administrator Associate Administrator National Programs Research Operations Program Planning and Coordination Area and NAL Directors Program Support and Operations (HQ) (National Program Staff) Larry Chandler Michael Arnold Joon Park Dariusz Swietlik Jeffrey Silverstein Marlen Eve Plains Area Director, Northeast Area Deputy Administrator, Deputy Administrator, Deputy Administrator, Budget & Program Administrative & National Program Staff National Program Staff Management Staff Financial Management Animal Production and Protection Natural Resources & Agricultural Systems J.L. Willett Robert Matteri Midwest Area Pacific West Area Sharon D. Drumm Paul Gibson Jack Okamuro Pamela Starke-Reed ARS Chief of Staff Chief Information Officer Acting Deputy Administrator, Deputy Administrator, National Program Staff National Program Staff Crop Production and Protection Human Nutrition and Food Safety Paul Wester Archie Tucker Southeast Area National Agricultural Library Sharon Drumm Willis Collie Director Acting Director, Office of Communication Office of Outreach, Diversity, Brian Norrington and Equal Opportunity Director, Office of International Research Programs Mojdeh Bahar Assistant Administrator, Office of Technology Transfer A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 7
ARS National Programs Animal Production Natural Resources Crop Production Nutrition, Food Safety/Quality • Plant Genetic • Human Nutrition • Food Animal • Water Availability & Resources, Genomics (107) Production (101) Watershed and Genetic Management (211) • Food Safety (animal & • Animal Health (103) Improvement (301) • Soil and Air (212) plant products) (108) • Veterinary, Medical, • Plant Diseases (303) • Product Quality & • Grass, Forage, and and Urban Entomology • Crop Protection & New Uses (306) (104) Rangeland Quarantine (304) Agroecosystems (215) • Aquaculture (106) • Crop Production (305) • Sustainable Agricultural Systems (216) A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 8
ARS Mission Solve high priority agricultural problems (farm to plate) through research Transfer solutions to customers and stakeholders A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 9
ARS Research Priorities • Ensure high-quality, safe food, and other agricultural products; • Assess the nutritional needs of Americans; • Sustain a competitive agricultural economy; • Enhance the natural resource base and the environment; • Provide economic opportunities for rural citizens, communities, and society as a whole A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 10
ARS Customers and Stakeholders • Administration • Congress • Action and Regulatory Agencies • Producers–Farmers and Ranchers • Industry • State and Local Governments • Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) • Advisory Boards • Consumers A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 11
Building Blocks of ARS Research Cycle Research Agenda Retrospective Action Plan Assessment Progress Research Reports Objectives OSQR peer review Research Research Project Plans A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 12
Inputs to Priority Setting Customers, Partners, Stakeholders, & Executive Branch Congress Advisory Boards (OMB, OSTP, USDA, other Federal agencies) ARS Program & Budgeting Priorities Scientific Community Agency Scientists & Managers A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 13
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/ ARS Strategic Plan & National Programs: Visions Action Plans Accomplishment Reports Retrospective Assessments A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 14
Peer Review is Important to ARS … and It’s the Law! 1998 Farm Bill (PL 105-185) Requires ARS Research Project Plans Peer Reviewed every 5 years External reviewers, unless expertise is not available outside of ARS Every plan must pass review • Failing plans may be revised and re-reviewed • Plans failing re-review will not be implemented A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 15
ARS Peer Review vs. Granting Agencies ARS Granting Agencies • ASSIGNED Objectives • DESIGNED Objectives • NO FUNDING review/decision • Decide to Fund, or not to • NO RANKING of plans • Rank Proposals for funding • FIVE-YEAR research cycle • Cycles vary, often 1-3 years • PLAN Review • PROPOSAL Review • Like a Manuscript Peer Review • Traditional Grant Peer Review • Reviewer Feedback • Reviewer Feedback – ARS Response Required by Law – May be seen by researchers – Plans often changed based on – Proposals perhaps may not Panel comments, as a manuscript change based on Panel comments • Scientist Responses Available • Scientist responses may not to Review Panel be available to Review Panel A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 16
ARS Project Plan Peer Review Criteria Adequacy of Approach – Plan and procedures appropriate? – Sufficient information provided for understanding and review? – Researcher understanding of methodology, technology demonstrated? – Researcher/collaborator roles clear? – Plan conveys a clear, logical experimental design; well-written? Probability of Success – Plan likely to lead to success, or produce significant new knowledge? If the risks are significant, are they worth the potential payoffs? Merit and Significance – Will the plan lead to new information, findings, or understandings? – What is the potential impact to stakeholders? Society? Agriculture? A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 17
ARS Project Plan Peer Review Scores Passing Scores • NO REVISION : Excellent, no changes or additions, suggestions welcomed/responded to • MINOR REVISION : Sound, feasible, minor changes needed • MODERATE REVISION : Some change to approach needed, but feasible What Happens Next? i. Lead Scientist responds to reviewers’ comments and updates the research project plan ii. Science Quality Review Officer certifies each plan when panel recommendations are addressed, much like an approval from a science journal editor A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 18
ARS Project Plan Peer Review Scores Borderline and Failing Scores • MAJOR REVISION : Sound and Feasible IF significantly revised, major gaps in plan • NOT FEASIBLE : Major flaws, omissions, or deficiencies; plan is unclear so as to be impossible to review What Happens Next? i. Lead Scientist responds to reviewers’ comments and revises the research project plan ii. The plan is re-reviewed by the SAME panel, and a second on-line panel discussion is held iii. The plan receives a second score at re-review Re-reviewed plan scoring Major or Not Feasible a second time Is marked as “Failed Review” The plan will not be implemented A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 19
So you’ve agreed to be a Panelist … now what? A GRICULTURAL R ESEARCH S ERVICE O FFICE OF S CIENTIFIC Q UALITY R EVIEW 20
Recommend
More recommend
