Review Users Group Meeting
Date: April 9, 2001
Time: 1:00 pm
Location: Rockledge II, Room 3087

Next Meeting: To be decided (late April or early May)

Dr. Bradley brought the meeting to order at 1:10 pm. There were two main items on the agenda: 1) demonstration of the NIAID Electronic Review System; and 2) review of the summary list of IMPAC II/REV enhancements/fixes to reassess the priority of outstanding requirements.

Demo of NIAID Electronic Review System

Dr. Bradley demonstrated NIAID's system as a model for expediting the scientific review of grant applications using web technology. This system enables reviewers to submit their critiques and initial priority scores via the Internet. After the deadline for submission has passed, reviewers can read the evaluations entered by others prior to the review meeting (except where there is a conflict of interest). The SRA also has the ability to generate a preliminary report of upper and lower scores. Subsequent to the meeting, reviewers are permitted to update their critiques; the system also serves to facilitate the generation of summary statements.

Dr. Bradley conceded that although the NIAID system is far from perfect, it represents a great improvement over current practices. Electronic review is a natural extension of electronic applications being piloted with scanning technology. Dr. Bradley cited several benefits. Reviewers can compose in a word processor and then paste the text into the critique screen. Members will be able to see what's coming to the table prior to the meeting; SRAs can preview the critiques of low-scoring applications. Furthermore, Electronic Review enables the creation of summary statements from a common source. However, Dr. Bradley noted first, that the NIAID system has reached its capacity, and second, that it is incompatible with IMPAC II.

An open forum for questions and comments followed the demo. One problem has been getting the reviewers to complete their critiques by the established deadline. Reluctance on the part of reviewers to use the new technology is another issue, although one SRA reported 95% compliance. Mike Sesma reported that some are having difficulty accessing the website. Attendees using the system were encouraged to solicit input as to how an IMPAC II version could be designed so as to overcome the limitations of the NIAID system.

Given the enthusiasm for the concepts of the NIAID system, but recognizing its incompatibility with IMPAC II, the next step will be to work with ROW/Logicon to design an electronic review system for IMPAC II that satisfies all business requirements and has desired "bells and whistles". Dr. Bradley suggested that the new system be called Electronic Critique System (ECS). There was some debate over whether redesigning the assignment screen or developing ECS should take precedence. Dr. Bradley sees ECS as the higher priority since it will speed up the process of getting summary statements to the ICs. Mike Sesma thinks the redesign of the assignment screen should take priority. Ev Sinnett commented that making critiques accessible prior to the review session would require a culture change. Andy Greenleaf replied that this functionality could be blocked. He also advised that ECS should not be built on an underlying system whose architecture is about to change.

Review of Priorities

The ROW/Logicon Summary Report of 4/4/01 was reviewed to identify completed requests and to reprioritize outstanding items.

Closed - REV 0310, 1702, 0037, 0327, 1210, 1200

Included in May Release - REV 2044, 1115, 1113, 1638, 0160, 1698, 1701

Duplicate - REV 1195, 1110

Deleted - REV 1160, 1191, 1188

Deferred priorities and outstanding new priorities are summarized in the Attachment below.

Miscellaneous Discussion Items

1. Daniel Fox suggested that the Order of Review screen be eliminated. The order can be displayed in a new column in the List of Applications for a Meeting screen. Users would like the ability to clear or hide this column before printing.
2. Daniel would like to find out who uses the scientific terms self-list. The capability can be added to the 1100 screen; the maintenance screen can be eliminated.
3. Richard Panniers strongly encouraged the testing of summary statements by the ICs prior to the start of Phase 3.
4. With regard to the need for continued training, it was noted that a usable and available test database is badly needed.

Action Items

1. GTA's Bev, Bobbi, Tracey and Sosi will investigate proposal to change address label size to 1X4 (re: REV 1702).
2. Daniel Fox will bring a list of R&R reports and their purpose (re: REV 1226)
3. Poll colleagues to determine who uses scientific terms self-list
4. With Phase 3 of summary statement functionality approaching, the CSR RTAs need to set up demos for the leads.
5. Dr. Bradley will ask Dr. McGowan to clarify who is responsible for training.
6. ROW/Logicon will update the Summary Report to reflect new priorities.

Dr. Bradley thanked all attendees for their hard work and adjourned the meeting at approximately 4:15 pm.

A special thanks to Ev Sinnett for assisting Madeline Monheit with these minutes.

Attachments