Mike Grusak and Mike Strauss

Office of Scientific Quality Review

Surviving the Path to Peer Review Success

“1998 Farm Bill”* ARS research peer-

reviewed every 5 years

Most review panelists external to ARS

Satisfactory review before beginning research

Why OSQR Review?

*Technically the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 and not considered a “Farm Bill.”

National Action Plan

OSQR Review

Retrospective evaluation

Stakeholder input

Input

Implement

PlanAssess

Input Objectives set (PDRAM)

Project Plan prepared.

Research initiated

Annual progress reviews

You are here

NPL Validation

COI Lists

“Life after the PDRAM…”FIRST: Review OSQR Handbook and Area/RL expectations

-Plan Drafted lead scientist and project team -Review by other colleagues-Review by RL-Revision

Revised plan to Area Officefor approval

(some require proof of outsider review)

If needed, plan revisedApproved Plan sent by Area to

Office of National Programs

Validation by National Program Leader

Due to OSQR

Validated plan returned to Area

Revision ifNeeded (through Area)

Some Advice• Set a time line

• Based on when the plan is due to the Area Office• What does your Area require?

• Some want proof of review outside your group.• If not you should still send the plan outside your

group for review.

• Schedule time for:• Each member of the team to write • Members to coordinate plans• Lead scientist to compile a cohesive document• Colleagues to review the plan• RL to review the plan• Revision of the plan following review

Who Oversees OSQR?Mike Grusak, ARS Scientific Quality Review Officer (SQRO)• Approves chairs and panelists• Certifies project plans

Mike Strauss, OSQR Coordinator• Schedules panels, trains chairs and panelists• Manages the review

Both Mikes:• Attend panel meetings • Read project plans• Read reviews • Read and evaluate responses

Who are the Reviewers?

Panelists:

are your colleaguesThey read your peer-reviewed papers

are active scientistsMost are academics

often know your workWhich may or may not help!

take their task very seriously

They don’t want to give low scores!

76%

13%8%

AcademiaIndustryGovtRetiredFormer ARSOther

Who are the Reviewers?

How is a Panel Selected?

Suggestions/nominations from ONP, others

Potential chairs screened for conflicts

Candidates interviewed, SQRO approves

Chairs Coordinator develop proposed panelists

SQRO reviews and approves panel

Reviewers NEED to know…

What is the problem?

Why is it important?

Where are you going with it?

How are you going to get there?

Don’t make them hunt for this!

Aggregated PlansSome plans have “independent” pieces. Be aware of…

- Clarity…why are all these pieces here?

What links them?

State, however, that they are independent

- Consistency…in level of detail

Someone needs to oversee the final product.

- Content (flow)…an “easy read?”

The general format is not rigid.

- “Consensus” All parts should say the same thing!

Review Products

• Action Class Score

• Consensus review comments

Project Review Criteria

Adequacy of Approach and Procedures

Probability of Successfully accomplishing the Project’s Objectives

Merit and Significance

Title and Investigators..………….page 1Signature Page……………...........page 2Table of Contents……….………….page 3Project summary (250 words)...page 4Objectives...…………..................page 5 Need for research (1-2 p)Scientific Background (5-7 p)Approach & Procedures (6-15 p)Prior Accomplishments (2 p)Literature CitedMilestone Table (1-3 p)Past Accomplishments of Project Team MembersIssues of Concern statementsAppendices (letters plus other material)

15 - 30 pages+

4 pages for tables/figures

Document Outline

Project Plan Components

Write this in active voice…And plain English!

What are you doing? Why is it important?

Earlier work (1-2 sentences)?

What will you do next?

So what!?

Make it compelling!

Project Summary – 250 words

Project Plan Components

Express need scientifically AND in the context of NP Action Plan.

Be concise in statement of research purpose.

Discuss potential benefits and anticipated products.

Briefly note the overall approach (e.g., …using microarray technologies we will elucidate…”

DON’T repeat, the overview!

NEED FOR RESEARCH: 1-2 pages

Where are you going?

Project Plan Components

Why are all these pieces here? How do they relate?

Include a figure.

- Objectives and sub-objectives- Personnel- Outcomes- Related projects

“What is the use of a book,”

thought Alice, “without pictures…”

Objectives: 1-2 pages

Project Plan Components

Gap AnalysisDemonstrate understanding and gaps. Not an exhaustive.

Rationale for the work

How will this fill knowledge gaps?

1/3 of project plan length

Note similar projects within and outside ARS and how your past work prepares for or leads to this (provide details in the Prior Accomplishments section…but say enough to convince reviewers you know the area).

Cite preliminary data from your projects, if available

Scientific Background: 5-7 pages

Project Plan ComponentsPrior Accomplishments: 1-2 pages

Prior project terminated within two years

Major objectives and accomplishments

Prior project investigators

Impact of prior work (science, technology, users)

Pertinent publications

A table or chart of past data can be very helpful.

Project Plan Components Approaches & Procedures: 6-12 pages

How are you going to get there?

Experimental designApproaches and methods any why they are appropriate.

Advantages and limitations (important if “risky”).

Who will do what, how, when

Collaborations

Letters in Appendix need to confirm what you say!

For SCAs, a copy of the agreement is sufficient. Management, evaluation, and contingencies. What is your path to success? How will you monitor it?

MILESTONES AND OUTCOMES

Project Plan ComponentsSummarizes the project

Dynamic over the project lifecycle

Goal or Hypothesis

Goal or Hypothesis

Project Title

Project No.

National Program (Number: Name)

Objective

NP Action Plan Component

NP Action Plan Problem Statement

Subobjective

Goal/Hypothesis

SYTeam Months Milestone Anticipated Product Progress/Changes

12

24

36

48

60

Goal/Hypothesis

SYTeam Months Milestone Anticipated Product

Progress/Changes

12

24

36

48

60

See the OSQR Handbook for this new format for Milestones Table

This column for

managementafter review.

• Readability and narrative flow• Connection between parts (a diagram)• Appropriate roles for all • Appropriate expertise on team or from

collaborators• Grammar/spelling/proofreading• Appropriate detail in Approach• Clear, proper, milestones• Real contingencies

Does the plan instill confidence in this team’s abilities?

Project Plan Checklist

Real Hypotheses—Are they testable? NOT REQUIRED but don’t use a general goal where a hypothesis is better!

Lack of connection--How/why do the parts of your plan relate? Or if part does not, why is it there?

Uneven presentation—Edit for consistency

Context of plan—How does this fit with other similar work within and outside ARS?

Statistically sound—Are replicates sufficient? How will you analyze…“We’ve always done it this way” is not sufficient.

Some Frequent Criticisms

How will it get done?—Who does what? What other resources are there? (postdocs, technicians, students…include in human and physical resources)

Vagueness that prevents real analysis—If the information is confidential say why you can’t tell them but say enough to allow some level of analysis.

Risk without justification--Risk can be good but ONLY if it’s apparent you are aware of the challenge and have justified it.

Data accumulation without analysis—It’s not enough to gather data, what will you do with it?

Vacancies—Guidance on Web

Publishing prior work--If you have the data already the panel will want to see HOW you got it!

…More

To keep in mind…The reviewers need to see the logical

“thread” through your work.

Don’t make readers “search” for what you are doing!

Be clear, accurate, and correct.

Don’t assume reviewers know you and your work…(a poor plan may not be saved even if they do!)

Some hints to success…Proofread Your Plan

Ask a nontechnical person to read your plan

Ask someone who hasn’t seen it to read and proofread your plan

Ask a highly critical colleague to read it thoroughly.

Are collaborations documented appropriately?

Check hypotheses…

Treat this the same care you would a competitive proposal. The reviewers will!

HypothesesDon’t avoid them if appropriate but don’t force

them if they are not.

Must be falsifiable and testable.

Not restatements of objectives.

A GOAL may be better for some work like breeding or germplasm characterization…but explain that!

EITHER hypothesis or a clear goal is essential.

Seek review by a statistician.

What Happens After Review?

No, Minor or Moderate RevisionLead Scientist responds to comments. Scientific Quality Review Officer certifies compliance with recommendations.

Major Revision or Not Feasible Lead Scientist revises and responds to comments. Panel performs a second review assessing response to their comments and assigns a new Action Class Score. If still Major or Not Feasible, project is returned for administrative action. No further review.

Projects are reviewed no more than two times(There are no page limits for revised plans)

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?

Can I disagree with the panel?

This is a dialogue

If you really disagree…put it away for a few days!

Then…

Honestly consider panel opinions.

Be polite but if you disagree say why

DON’T skip changes to plan

DON’T insult or impugn panelists

DO provide justification for your alternative view

Panels are NOT perfect…they are colleagues

How not to disagreeQ: The panel does not see any [expertise] in this plan.

A: “I disagree.” [no explanation]

Q: Can you provide some preliminary data to support this idea.

A: “Yes, we have preliminary data but can’t/won’t show it to you.”

Q: The panel suggests you try this approach.

A: But that’s just too difficult.

A: We’re not allowed to alter this project in any way. [not true!]

A: We’ve done it our way for [x] years and see no reason to change.

A: The panel 5 years ago approved this so you can’t change it.

Q: This is not a hypothesis. Fix it or change to a goal statement.

A: I looked at Tom’s plan and Bill’s and their panel didn’t make them do this so I don’t think I should have to do it.

Q: Did you do a power analysis?

A: No we did not, but we’ve always done it this way before.

A. Yes. It said we needed more so we ignored it.

Good to know…• Reviewers may (on rare occasion) comment on Objectives…we discourage

redirecting them or tinkering with the wording and ask, if they do, to not consider that in their scoring.

• A final copy of your responses is sent to the panel (for their information) after it is certified.

• For plans scoring Moderate or higher, OSQR reviews the responses to assure they are thorough and appropriate; and may return them for additional work before certification if needed.

• The Officer can decline certification if, after several attempts, it is judged that the researchers have not or cannot adequately address reviewer comments (i.e., your plan does not “pass” until it is certified).

• For plans scoring Major Revision or below, while OSQR may briefly check to see if the responses are thorough and respectful…this is not a detailed review and does not assure panel re-review success.

Last Words

ProofreadSeek Review

then

proofread and seek more reviewAnd lastly

Proofread and Seek Review

However…

You can be grammatically correct and STILL unintelligible!

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves  Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;All mimsy were the borogoves,  And the mome raths outgrabe.

Lewis Carroll

Be thoughtful, clear, and thorough

…and beware of overconfidence…

Questions?

The Message…

By page 7 (Need for Research)

Subject of your research

Why it is important

What it will produce

How you are going to get there