# Presentation: 465162

## Office of Scientific Quality Review
USDA-ARS
Science Officer: Dr. Jerry Hatfield
Project Coordinator: Dr. Michael Strauss

**USDA-ARS**
**Science Officer: Dr. Jerry Hatfield**
**Project Coordinator: Dr. Michael Strauss**

**An Introduction to OSQR**

## Agricultural                  Research Service

**Agricultural                  Research Service**

**Notes:**
This chart depicts the Headquarters organizational structure of the Department of Agriculture and the relationship of the REE Mission Area and the respective Agencies in the Mission Area to the other Mission Areas of the Department.

The Agricultural Research Service is part of what is now known as Research, Education, and Economics (REE)–Mission Area, with Dr. Joe Jen as the Under Secretary.  Dr. Rodney Brown is Deputy Under Secretary.

## Research, Education, and Economics

***ARS***

***CSREES***

***ERS***

***NASS***

***Gale Buchanan***
***Under-Secretary***
***Merle Pierson***
***Deputy Under-Secretary***

**Agricultural Research Service**

**Economic Research Service**

**Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service**

**National Agricultural Statistical Service**

**Notes:**
The Agricultural Research Service is part of what is now known as Research, Education, and Economics (REE)–Mission Area, with Dr. Joe Jen as the Under Secretary.  REE is made up of

.Cooperative States Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)
.Economic Research Service (ERS)
.National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and
.ARS, where Dr. Knipling is the Administrator 

## In-house research
Farm-to-table scope
22 National Programs
1,100+ projects 
2,100 scientists
100 labs
$1B annual budget

- Farm-to-table scope
- 22 National Programs
- 1,100+ projects
- 2,100 scientists
- 100 labs
- $1B annual budget

**Agricultural Research Service**

## ARS Locations

**ARS Locations**

**OSQR**
**George Washington Carver Center, Beltsville, Maryland**

## ARS Mission

- 	Conduct research to develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems of high national priority and provide information access and dissemination to:
- Ensure **high quality, safe food** and other products
- Assess the **nutritional needs** of Americans
- Sustain a **competitive agricultural economy**
- Enhance the **natural resource** base and the **environment**** **
- Provide **economic opportunities** to rural citizens and society as a whole.

## Stakeholder input

Program planning cycle

**Program planning cycle**

- Setting Research Priorities

## 2. National Program developed.

***5. ******OSQR Review and Certification.***

***8. ******Retrospective evaluation.***

***1.****** Stakeholder Workshop (customers, scientists, National Program Staff, Center Directors, Area Directors).***

- Input

- Implementation

- Planning

- Assessment

- Input

***3. ******Program Priorities set (PDRAM).***

***4. ******Research  Project Plan describing research prepared.***

***6. ******Research initiated***

***7. ******Annual progress reviews***

***Congressional Mandate***

## 1998 Farm Bill

ARS research peer-
reviewed every 5 years

Most review panelists external to ARS

Satisfactory review
before beginning
research

**ARS research peer-**
**reviewed every 5 years**
**Most review panelists external to ARS**
**Satisfactory review**
**before beginning**
**research**

- Creation of OSQR

**Notes:**
The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB) provides advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and land-grant colleges and universities on top priorities and policies for food and agricultural research, education, extension and economics. The Board is made up of 31 members, each of which represents a specific category of U.S. agricultural stakeholders, as mandated by Congress. 

## What Makes OSQR Reviews Unique?

- Directed Research
-   Problems determined through internal planning processes
- Not a funding decision
-   Funds already allocated for research
- May be large and coordinated with others
-   Range of disciplines, locations, scientists
- Long-term
-    5-year horizon with contingencies
- Significant advisory component
-    Can undergo revision before acceptance

## Review Purpose and Goals

- Provide ARS with external peer review of prospective project plans.
- Showcase and improve the quality and breadth of ARS research.
- Foster the improving of ARS research and project plans.
- Redirection of research funds to areas of greatest likelihood of success and impact.
- Review of all ARS research once every 5 years.

## 2005

| 
Animal Production & Protection | 
Nutrition, Food Safety/Quality | Natural Resources & Sustainable Agric. Systems | 
Crop Production & Protection |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 101 Food Animal Production | 107 Human Nutrition | 201 Water Quality & Management | 301 Genetic Resources, Genomics, Genetic Imp. (Plants, Mic., Insects) |
| 103 Animal Health | 108 Food Safety (anim. & plant prod) | 202 Soil Resource Management | 302 Plant Biol. & Molecular Processes |
| 104 Veterinary, Medical & Urban Entomology | 306 Quality & Utilization of Agricultural Products | 203 Air Quality |  |
| 106 Aquaculture |  | 204 Global Change | 304 Crop Protection & Quarantine (in 2010) |
| 
 |  | 205 Rangeland, Pasture & Forages | 305 Crop Production
 |
|  |  | 206 Manure and Byproduct Util. | 307 Bioenergy & Energy Alternatives
 |
|  |  | 207 Integrated Agricultural Systems | 308 Methyl Bromide Alternatives
 |
|  |  |  |  |

**2006**

**2007**

**2009**

**2008**

_***303 Plant Diseases***_

**Notes:**
No background: 2005
Light blue: 2006
Pink: 2007
Gray: 2008
Green: 2009

## Project Plans not Proposals

- Not Proposals for research
- 	 Research area determined by internal process
- Funding decisions made by plan or mandate
- 	Panels do not determine if research subject appropriate
- Plan for Research
- 	Panel assesses if plan adequate to address problem
- Assessment of Impact
- 	Will research produce new information or understanding?

## Document Overview

- Signature Page..........................page 2
- Table of Contents.......................page 3
- Project summary (250 words)...page 4
- Objectives.................................page 5
- Need for research  (1-2 p)
- Scientific Background  (5-7 p)
- Prior Accomplishments (2 p)
- Approach & Procedures (6-15 p)
- Milestone Table (1-3 p)
- Literature Cited
- Past Accomplishments of Project Team
- Issues of Concern statements
- Appendices (letters plus other material)

**OSQR**

**Document Overview**

**Sent as printed document and on CD **

**Sent on a cd**

## Panel Functions

***Panel is NOT reviewing ***
***National Program direction, objectives or funding***
- Chair
-    Guides process and serves as a panel member
- Panelists
-    Serve as primary and secondary reviewers as designated by chair and provide comments in discussion of all plans.
- Advisory Component
- 	Primary prepares consensus advice
- Assessment Component
- 	By law each panelist (including chair) rates each plan

## Conflicts of Interest

- Collaboration with project scientist within last FOUR years.
- 		Coauthorship
- 		Research collaboration
- Thesis, dissertation, postdoc advisor or graduate student/postdoc association within last EIGHT years.
- Institutional or Consulting affiliation.
- 		Submitting Institution, investigators, or collaborators
- Financial gain from project.

## Review Process

- Primary Reviewer
- Presentation

- Secondary Reviewer
- Presentation

- Panel Discussion

- Action Class Scoring
- By Each Panelist

**TO SQR**
**OFFICER**

- Primary Reviewer
- Writes Panel
- Recommendations

- Panel Chair
- Validates
- Recommendations

- Advisory Component

- Assessment Component

## Ad Hoc Reviews

- Provide Additional Expertise not on Panel
- Identified by Chair or panelists in advance of Panel Meeting.
- Invited by OSQR Staff
- Ad Hoc Reviewers DO NOT attend panel meetings.
- Action Class Rating of Ad Hoc Reviewers NOT included in final panel score.

## Review Criteria

- Adequacy of Approach
- 	Are the research plan and procedures appropriate?
- Probability of Success
- 	Is the process likely to lead to success?
- Merit and Significance
- 	Will this lead to new information, new findings, or new understandings? What would be the impact of this work on stakeholders? Society? Agriculture?

## Action Class Ratings

**No Revision**
- Excellent project. No changes or additions are required
- (although suggestions may be made)
**Minor Revision**
- Approach sound. Project feasible.
- Some minor changes are required
**Moderate Revision**
- Some change to an approach needed
- but project is feasible.
**Major revision**
- Sound and feasible IF significantly revised. Major gaps in plan or information provided. Revised plan must be reviewed again before acceptance.
**Not feasible**
- Major flaws, omissions, or deficiencies in resources make this unfeasible or not possible to assess. Project revised and reviewed again or terminated.

## What Happens After Review?

**  ****No, Minor or Moderate**** ****Revision**
- Lead Scientist responds to comments. Scientific Quality Review Officer certifies compliance with committee recommendations.
**  ****Major Revision or Not Feasible**
- Lead Scientist revises and responds to comments.
- Examined  by panel (Web-based meeting).
- Scientific Quality Review Officer certifies.
**Projects are reviewed no more than ****two times**
**(once after initial review)**

## What Happens After Review?(Researcher)

- 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?****(Researcher)**

## Action Class Rating Form

## Action Class Rating Form

**We complete the top for you**

**For Chair to initial**

**Brief comment/suggestion (not required)**

**Project title**

**National Program**

**Lead Scientist**

**Reviewer Code**

**Date of panel meeting**

## Action Class Rating Form

**Select an Action Class for this project  (required)**

**Action Class definitions**

## Panelist Review Form

**Primary and Secondary Reviewers complete this**

## Panelist Review Form

## Panelist Review Form

## Panelist Review Form

- At your panel meeting you will edit/cut & paste these to produce the consensus recommendation...

## Panel Recommendation Form

**Synthesis of Primary, Secondary, and panel comments by Primary Reviewer**

## What Happens After Review?(Panel)

- Debriefing
- Purpose of this is to assess the process not to discuss the reviews.
- Chair’s written summary of discussions     Reviewers are not named, general issues, no specific plan discussion.

## Logistics

- Travel
- 	**Details provided by OSQR**** **
**	****Panelists must arrange through FedTraveler (phone only)**
**	****	****...****delayed for those meeting after Sept. 30...**
**	****Tickets usually unrestricted (government fares)**
**	****Thurgood Marshall-BWI most convenient to OSQR but may use Washington Dulles-IAD or Reagan National-DCA**
**	****eTickets issued 3 days before departure**
**	****Taxi or shuttle to hotel**
**	****Driving reimbursement at government rate (.445/mile).**

## Logistics

- Lodging
- 	**Sheraton College Park Hotel**
**	****OSQR makes reservation and provides confirmation**
**	****Panelists pay hotel room charges and are reimbursed**
**	****OSQR does not reimburse for telephone/Internet charges or movies**

## Logistics

- Ground transportation
- 	**From Airport: Taxi or SuperShuttle**
**	****Sheraton Hotel Shuttle (we can arrange) or taxi**
**	****To dinner: Hotel Shuttle or taxi**
**	****OSQR does not reimburse for rental cars.**

## Logistics

- Meals
- 	**Reimbursed up to $64/day for meals**
**	****Travel days are prorated ($48). **
**	****No reimbursement for alcohol.**
- Honorarium/Expenses
- 	**File required paperwork.**
**	****Payment at end of Web-based re-review meeting.**
**	****	****8-10 weeks after your panel meeting.**
**	****Hotel, meal reimbursement to follow.**

## Peer Review Resources

- OSQR Web Site
- www.ars.usda.gov/osqr
- National Program Staff
- OSQR Staff
- Mike.strauss@ars.usda.gov
- Christina.woods@ars.usda.gov
- Linda.fuller@ars.usda.gov
- osqr@ars.usda.gov

## What Next?

- _Panel Appointment:_
- Using our list and your personal knowledge select a list of panelists you like to include (assume one for each two plans). You may wish to contact people to see if they would participate if asked
- Send your list to Mike at _mike.strauss@ars.usda.gov_ to check for conflicts.
- Working with OSQR, set dates for your meeting (you may wish to work on dates when asking if people would serve).
- OSQR will take panel arrangements from there.
- _Personal:_
- Make your travel plans.
- Email a copy of your "ticketed reservation email" to _OSQR@ars.usda.gov__ _ We reserve your hotel.
- Read through all projects you have/will receive making notes for discussion.
**We will brief your panel on the process and their obligations once they are appointed.**

## Laptops, etc.

- OSQR has several laptops that you may use.
- Personal Laptops: You will need to log them in on arrival at the Carver Center.
- If you can't bring it on an airplane you may not be able to bring it in the building (but we’ll let you keep your water bottle).

## Input

**Implementation**

- Planning

- Assessment

**Review**