# ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="0.4166666666666667in" height="0.2972222222222222in"} Internet Assisted Review Focus Group

**Date:** June 10, 2002, Thurs.

**Time:** 1:30--4:00 p.m.

**Location:** Rockledge 2, Room 3087

**Advocate:** Eileen Bradley

**Team Leaders:** Tracy Soto, Scarlett Gibb

**Next Meeting: Mon., June 21, 1:30--4 p.m., Rockledge 2, Room 3087**

The **Scope document,** containing requirements, is posted on the eRA
website at this URL:

<http://era.nih.gov/Docs/IAR_Scope_Document_Draft_06-10-02.doc>

The minutes refer to this presentation, which includes screens and
today's requirements:

<http://era.nih.gov/Docs/IAR_Agenda_Req_06-20-02.ppt>

## Action Items

-   (Daniel) Add a NC (non-competitive) button on the Submit Critique
    and Preliminary Score screen.

-   (Daniel) Add a Conflict of Interest (COI) column on the Score Matrix
    screen.

-   (Eileen) Present this proposal regarding assignment information
    purge dates to the Review Policy Committee (RPC).

-   (Daniel) Put the Critique Posting Status Report in the Peer Review
    module.

## Pre-Summary Statement Assembly

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Number**     **Requirement**                        **Comments/Changes**
  -------------- -------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **5.1.3.11**   I think this placeholder should just   This is prioritized as
                 be removed. The following items are    Version 1, Must.
                 inserted.                              

  **New**        Critiques for subprojects should be    
                 included in the parent grant           
                 pre-summary statement.                 

  **New**        Subprojects should be sorted using the 
                 order specified in the Order of Review 
                 in the IMPAC II Peer Review Module.    
                 (SRA/GTAs may need to renumber their   
                 Order of Review before the pre-summary 
                 statement bodies are created.)         

  **New**        Within each subproject, critiques will 
                 be sorted using the standard order of  
                 Primary, Secondary, etc.               
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

## Reports

### Subprojects

There was a discussion regarding subproject printing. There can be as
many as 30 sections or subprojects in an application and the reviewer
may be assigned to only a few of those. The reviewer will want to print
only those sections assigned to them.

The Restricted Review of reports only shows the particular reviewer's
assignments. This view shows all of the subprojects but blanks out the
other reviewers' names and does not show unassigned applications and
subprojects. This screen can be printed by the reviewer so there is no
need for a separate report.

The group agreed that for Version 1, this section is okay as is; there
is no need for a further report.

**Note: The IAR is going to support Word and Plain-text submissions but
not WordPerfect.**

### Request for New Button

Brian Wojcik suggested adding a "non-competitive" (NC) radio button on
the "Submit Critique and Preliminary Score" screen. This would be in
addition to the NR and DF radio buttons already identified. This
designation would indicate that the application has merit but is not as
competitive as others. However, it is not to be dismissed out of hand
and there should be a short discussion of it.

The group agreed that this button should be added, and the Daniel said
that it would require a minimum of effort. The sort options would be:
NR, NC, 5 down to 1.

Action: (Daniel) Add a NC (non-competitive) radio button on the Submit
Critique and Preliminary Score screen.

+-------+--------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **Num | **Requirement**                      | **Comments/Changes** |
| ber** |                                      |                      |
+=======+======================================+======================+
| **5.1 | A useful additional feature would be | This requirement is  |
| 9.3** | to allow the reviewers to print      | resolved by allowing |
|       | their own copies of their assignment | users to print       |
|       | lists.                               | applications in the  |
|       |                                      | order they need (see |
|       |                                      | 5.1.3.11).           |
+-------+--------------------------------------+----------------------+
|       | The format would need to be SRA/GTA  | These two            |
|       | controlled---either "Assignment List | requirements are     |
|       | and Conflicts by Reviewer" (full     | prioritized as       |
|       | assignment information on only those | Version 2, Could.    |
|       | applications assigned to the         |                      |
|       | reviewer ) or "Assignment List and   |                      |
|       | Conflicts by Reviewer (Restricted    |                      |
|       | Version)" (no information on         |                      |
|       | co-reviewers). The New Investigator  |                      |
|       | indicator should print.              |                      |
+-------+--------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **5.1 | SRA/GTA should have a Meeting Report | To satisfy this      |
| 9.4** | 1: A numbered report displaying PI   | request, add a       |
|       | name and application number along    | Conflict of Interest |
|       | with the current scoring and         | (COI) column (with   |
|       | streamlining information...          | and X to indicate    |
|       |                                      | COI) to the Score    |
|       |                                      | Matrix. This screen  |
|       |                                      | can be printed so no |
|       |                                      | need of a separate   |
|       |                                      | report.              |
|       |                                      |                      |
|       |                                      | Action: (Daniel) Add |
|       |                                      | a Conflict of        |
|       |                                      | Interest (COI)       |
|       |                                      | column on the Score  |
|       |                                      | Matrix screen.       |
|       |                                      |                      |
|       |                                      | Delete this          |
|       |                                      | requirement for a    |
|       |                                      | report.              |
+-------+--------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **5.1 | SRA/GTA should have a Meeting Report | This is prioritized  |
| 9.6** | 3: Preliminary Score Matrix View for | as Version 1, Must.  |
|       | SRA/GTA. The current screen proposed |                      |
|       | for the score matrix would suffice   |                      |
|       | (provided all 70--100 rows print). A |                      |
|       | separate report won't be created.    |                      |
|       | The SRA/GTA can print current score  |                      |
|       | matrix screen.                       |                      |
+-------+--------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **5.1 | SRA/GTA needs the ability to print   | This is prioritized  |
| 9.7** | all reviews, sorted by PI, with each | as Version 1, Must.  |
|       | PI beginning on a new page. The      |                      |
|       | requested feature would allow all    | Each critique will   |
|       | SRA/GTAs to bring a collated copy of | have a header.       |
|       | each "proto summary statement" to    |                      |
|       | the meeting and be able to refer to  | Each project is      |
|       | them during the meeting. This allows | divided into         |
|       | SRA/GTAs to ensure that key points   | subprojects in the   |
|       | made at the meeting are actually     | Peer Review module.  |
|       | written into the critiques.          | Subprojects are      |
|       |                                      | sorted by the parent |
|       |                                      | PI.                  |
+-------+--------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **5.1 | SRA/GTA will need a printable report | This is prioritized  |
| 9.8** | of the lower half list (to take as   | as a Version 2,      |
|       | the official list to the meeting)    | Could.               |
|       | and their associated combined        |                      |
|       | critiques.                           |                      |
+-------+--------------------------------------+----------------------+
| *     | SRA/GTA will need a Critique Posting | This is prioritized  |
| *5.19 | Status Report similar to report      | as a Version 1,      |
| .10** | current in ER (attached example      | Must.                |
|       | provided by Cindy Lassnoff)          |                      |
|       |                                      | It was agreed that   |
|       |                                      | the format of this   |
|       |                                      | report works except  |
|       |                                      | that the Submission  |
|       |                                      | Status data is not   |
|       |                                      | necessary.           |
|       |                                      |                      |
|       |                                      | This report can be   |
|       |                                      | sorted by table      |
|       |                                      | title.               |
|       |                                      |                      |
|       |                                      | Action: (Daniel) Put |
|       |                                      | this report in the   |
|       |                                      | Peer Review Module.  |
+-------+--------------------------------------+----------------------+

## IC Program Officer Access

+-------+--------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **Num | **Requirement**                      | **Comments/Changes** |
| ber** |                                      |                      |
+=======+======================================+======================+
| **5.1 | SRA/GTA should have the option of    | This is prioritized  |
| 4.1** | making the lower half list public to | as a Version 2,      |
|       | Program Officers. This allows the PO | Could.               |
|       | to optimize their travels between    |                      |
|       | SRG meetings.                        | The majority of      |
|       |                                      | opinion does not     |
|       |                                      | agree at this time;  |
|       |                                      | the group did agree  |
|       |                                      | that it should be    |
|       |                                      | discussed at a later |
|       |                                      | date.                |
+-------+--------------------------------------+----------------------+

## Purging Assignments/Meeting Closure

This section should be separated into Purging Assignments and Meeting
Closure.

### Purging Assignments

-   Delete assignment information (reviewers, assignments to
    applications, and conflicts) 15 days (TBD---approval needed by RPC)
    after the meeting is released. This requires a change to the
    existing way we do business, as assignment information is wiped out
    at meeting release now.

-   Keep the existing ability for the SRA/GTA to manually purge the
    assignments.

-   After assignments are purged, critiques and preliminary scores would
    still be associated with corresponding priorities (Primary 1,
    Secondary, etc.)

-   When meeting is released or assignments are purged manually, the
    Peer Review system should check that the assignment purge date is on
    or later than the Edit Phase End Date. If this is not the case, the
    user of the system should get an error message preventing them from
    doing the task and instructing them to change the Edit Phase End
    Date if there is a need to release a meeting or purge assignments.
    Purge Date cannot be earlier than Edit Phase End Date.

-   Reviewers should not have access to their meeting in IAR after the
    Purge date.

### Meeting Closure

For Meeting Closure, the group agreed to the following:

-   The system should automatically set the Meeting Closure Date to be
    six months from the Meeting Release Date.

-   On the Meeting Closure Date, all data in IAR corresponding to the
    meeting should be deleted (critiques, preliminary scores, etc.).

Action: (Eileen) Present this proposal regarding assignment information
purge dates to the Review Policy Committee (RPC).

## Other General Features

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Number**   **Requirement**                        **Comments/Changes**
  ------------ -------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **5.16.1**   Privacy for the IMPAC II Review module This is prioritized as
               is at the level of the IRG (or         a Version 1, Must.
               equivalent). The same level of privacy 
               appears to be appropriate for IAR.     
               However, the private checkbox on the   
               Review assignment screen limiting      
               access to the SRA/GTA only would have  
               to work in the same way for IAR if     
               this privacy mode is to be dept in the 
               Review module.                         

  **5.16.2**   There may be an opportunity to handle  This is prioritized as
               Travel Voucher via IAR.                a Version 2, Could.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Future Meeting Schedule and Topics

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Date**        **Topics**
  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------
  June 21         IAR Focus Group Review of all screens with final
                  sign-off for version 1 (Navigational Prototype).

  To be scheduled RUG Review of Navigational Prototype
  around July 1   

                  OER Internal Review

                  Critical Design Review

  Fall 2002       Pilot of Version 1 (for only 1 or 2 study sections)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Attendees

Binder, Roberta (NIAID)

David, Tracey (CSR)

Fox, Daniel (NGIT)

Gibb, Scarlett (OD)

Lassnoff, Cynthia (NIAID)

Levy, Adam (NGIT)

Rao, Harsha (Silicon Spirit)

Seppala, Sandy (LTS/OCO, recorder)

Sinnett, Ev (CSR)

Soto, Tracy (OD)

Sukhenko, Mikhail (Z-Tech)

White, Roy (NHLBI)

Wojcik, Brian (NCI)