United States Department of Agriculture
Research, Education and Economics

ARS * CSREES * ERS * NASS

Bulletin

Title: Guidelines for the Postponement of Research Project Plan Peer Reviews
Number: 03-601
Date: September 30, 2003
Replaces Related guidance in OA-0501; Peer Review Manual
Originating Office: ARS Administrator’s Office
Distribution: ARS-wide
Expires: September 30, 2004

 

 

The following guidance describes procedures required of lead scientists and research leaders to postpone an ARS CRIS project from its assigned panel peer review session.

 

1)       References

For additional information on the ARS Peer Review Process, See Manual OA-0500.

 

2)          Abbreviations

CRIS               -            Current Research Information System

NPS                 -            National Program Staff

OSQR             -            Office of Scientific Quality Review

 

3)        Definitions

Research Project Plan or Project Plan:  As used in this directive, means a 5-year plan of prospective research of which the Agricultural Research Service is responsible for conducting and/or funding.

Panel Peer Review or Panel Review: As used in this directive, refers to a panel of reviewers convened by the Office of Scientific Quality Review to evaluate and provide recommendations on research project plans.

 

4)     Coverage

Affects all ARS CRIS Category D-project research teams unless exempted from the peer review requirements set forth in P.L. 104-185 (Section 103(d)).

 

5)     Authorities

Title I--Priorities, Scope, Review, and Coordination of Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Act of 1998 (P.L.104-185; Section 103(d)).

 

6)   Policy and Procedure

The Office of Scientific Quality Review (OSQR) is responsible for managing the peer review of ARS research projects supported by in-house, base funds.  As mandated by law, these reviews are to take place every five years by peer review panels consisting of scientific experts from universities, private industry and state and federal governmental agencies.  New research projects and existing projects, which have undergone extensive reorganization, also must be reviewed soon after they are implemented by the National Program Staff (NPS).  Area Directors and National Program Leaders should ensure, where feasible, that new or reorganized projects are established prior to the start of the appropriate panel review session and no later than the start of the prospectus-development stage of the review process. 

Cooperation at all administrative levels is needed to ensure timely review of new and existing research projects.  Assembling peer review panels to review project plans is one of the more important responsibilities of the OSQR staff.  Panel service requires a significant commitment of time by panel members. Once a peer review panel meeting is scheduled, it is difficult to alter the schedule.  Project plans not completed in time to be reviewed by a scheduled peer review panel are highly problematic.  Such tardy plans must be sent out later for ad hoc peer review, wherein additional scientific experts must be recruited to perform the review.  Also, tardiness or postponement in submission of project plans for review undermine the integrity of the peer review process for the Agency. 

More importantly, tardy plans sent out for ad hoc review do not benefit from the face-to-face discussions by members of a peer review panel.  Panel discussions that are rigorous are integral to the peer review process, and result in the best evaluations of the quality of the proposed research and suggestions to improve the research.  Lead Scientists and Research Leaders/Laboratory Directors are responsible for ensuring that project plans are submitted to OSQR on schedule.  Postponement of peer review of a project plan will therefore be approved only under exceptional circumstances. 

Two criteria that may allow postponement are listed below.

  1. Key Scientific Leadership Vacancies and Long-Term Absences.  Critical leadership vacancies are typically generated when key incumbents leave existing project positions or when new appropriations provide for new projects and/or objectives.  Long-term absences include any factor such as family leave or major illness that would preclude a member of a project from performing their duties for more than two months.  Even when such vacancies or absences are expected to exist for several months, however, the Lead Scientist or Research Leader should consult with their supervisor and strive to develop creative solutions that will facilitate the completion of the project plan on schedule.
  2. Significant Unanticipated Reorganization, Initiation, or Redirection of Research. Where feasible, planning for reorganization or redirection of research projects should   provide sufficient time for development of project plans that can be panel peer-reviewed at the time normally scheduled for the relevant National Program.  Scheduling information is available at the Schedule of Peer Reviews at the OSQR website http://www.ars.usda/osqr.  Timely development and panel peer review of a research project plan is also desirable when unanticipated appropriations and/or instructions are received to initiate, reorganize, or redirect research in significantly new objective areas. 

Before considering postponement, the Lead Scientist and Research Leader/Laboratory Director (or individuals acting in their capacity) are strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from sources, both inside and outside of the Agency, concerning research techniques and approaches not currently available in a project due to vacancies or absences but needed to carry out the proposed research.  Please note that the absence of a single scientist from a multiple-scientist project may not be sufficient to warrant postponement of a project plan review. 

If, after considering the above criteria, the Lead Scientist or Research Leader have remaining concerns about the feasibility and quality of the pending research plan, they should raise their concerns informally with their Area Director and appropriate National Program Staff member to discuss whether a postponement is appropriate.  Following these informal discussions and concurrence, the Lead Scientist or Research Leader requesting a postponement of the peer review of their project plan must request the postponement in the form of a memo addressed to the Associate Administrator.  This formal request should be routed through, and be approved by, the Research Leader/Laboratory Director, Institute Director (when appropriate), Area Director and appropriate Associate Deputy Administrator.  A copy of the request must be sent to the OSQR’s Scientific Quality Review Officer.  It is strongly recommended that the Lead Scientist or Research Leader make their request for a postponement no later than one month prior to the start of the prospectus-development stage of the scheduled review process.

The memo to the Associate Administrator must contain the following information:

  1. CRIS Project No.
  2. Title of the Project.
  3. National Program.
  4. Management Unit and Location.
  5. Name of the Lead Scientist.
  6. Names of the Research Leader, Center/Institute/Laboratory Director (if applicable), Associate Deputy Administrator, and Area Director shown as, who the memo went "through" for final approval.
  7. Investigators assigned to the project and percent time contribution by each.
  8. Specific reason(s) for the requested postponement.
  9. Time period of the requested postponement, to indicate the point in which a prospectus could be prepared.
  10. Efforts considered or made to complete the project plan write-up, and why they are not feasible or have failed.  (Please note that it is the responsibility of the Lead Scientist, Research Leader and their Center/Institute/Laboratory Director to exhaust all options for writing the project plan before requesting a postponement).  

Upon receiving documented concurrence (e-mails are acceptable) from the Research Leader, Center/Institute/Laboratory Director (if applicable), National Program Leader, and Area Director, the Lead Scientist or person acting in their capacity must forward the memo to the Associate Administrator’s Correspondence Unit at rdp@ars.usda.gov .  The Correspondence Unit can also be reached at 301-504-4517.

 

7)      Responsibilities

  1. Associate Administrator, where applicable, through the OSQR, assures ARS is in compliance with P.L. 104-185; Section 103(d).  Considers recommendations for the postponement of peer reviews of research projects and makes a final decision.
  2. Office of Scientific Quality Review, administers and provides guidance on the ARS Peer Review Process and advises the Associate Administrator.
  3. Area Directors, discuss, review, and concur on requests for the postponement of peer reviews.  Considers input on the rationale for postponements from NPS and research teams.
  4. National Program Leaders, Associate Deputy Administrators, review and make recommendations on requests for the postponement of peer reviews.
  5. Research Leaders, review and make recommendations on requests for the postponement of peer reviews.  May also request postponements.
  6. Lead Scientists (or individuals acting in their capacity), uses the above guidance to request a postponed peer review of their research project plan after other alternatives have been exhausted.

ApApproved by Dr. Caird Rexroad, Acting Associate Administrator                     Date