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 **Expiration:** September 30, 2004

**Originating Office:** ARS Administrator's Office

**Replaces:** Related guidance in OA-0501; *Peer Review Manual*

**Distribution:** ARS-wide

**References**

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

**Abbreviations**

CRIS - Current Research Information System

NPS - National Program Staff

OSQR - Office of Scientific Quality Review

**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.

**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)).

**Authorities**

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

**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]{.underline} 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]{.underline} 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]{.underline} 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]{.underline} 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.

**Responsibilities**

1.  [Associate Administrator]{.underline}, 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,]{.underline} administers and
    provides guidance on the ARS Peer Review Process and advises the
    Associate Administrator.

3.  [Area Directors,]{.underline} 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,]{.underline} review and make recommendations on
    requests for the postponement of peer reviews.

5.  [Research Leaders,]{.underline} 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),]{.underline} uses the above guidance to request a
    postponed peer review of their research project plan after other
    alternatives have been exhausted.

    Approved by Dr. Caird Rexroad, Acting Associate Administrator Date