The Peer Review Schedule is kept on the OSQR Website. First identify the National Program your project is assigned to and then go to the panel review session reserved for projects in that National Program. Then confirm that your plan is part of this review by contacting your National Program Leader. 

This assures that projects meet National Program expectations and Area needs.

The Area works with the Institute/Center Director, Research Leader and the location in the process of preparing, reviewing and approving all peer review related documents. They work closely with NPS to ensure that each plan’s objectives and approaches are consistent with the NP goals and they provide direction and instruction thru the local line managers to ARS researchers in meeting scientific quality requirements and in addressing the recommendations and suggestions of peer reviewers.  The Area monitors deadlines for the OSQR process. Finally, they provide feedback to the Research Leaders on their unit’s peer review panel scores and match their performance in peer review to their performance element containing their OSQR responsibility. For an example of one Area Office’s role in the ARS Peer Review Process, please click here (Mid South Area Office’s Role in the Peer Review Process)

All peer reviews are considered sensitive information. The primary reviewer’s recommendations are sent to your Area Director and National Program Leader. Your Area Director’s staff will coordinate further distribution of the peer review. Individual peer reviews are not accessible via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), however, general information about the process may be.

No, your Area Office is responsible for approving public access to your project plan and would be the party to provide that access if granted. OSQR will only give your project plan to peer reviewers who have signed a binding confidentiality agreement prior to receipt.

Yes, the objectives in the plan should be as stated in your PDRAM. 

Postponement of peer reviews must be formally requested in a memo to the ARS Associate Administrator. See http://www.afm.ars.usda.gov/ppweb/03-601-NPS.htm for guidelines. Postponement will be approved only under exceptional circumstances.

A seamless project plan is one characterized by an integrated set of objectives across a range of disciplines and experimental approaches. These plans demonstrate how each of the objectives contributes to the overall project goal and how the investigation team functions as a team. Seamless project plans contain two key characteristics; first, an overall goal of the objectives that provides a framework for all of the objectives; and second, a statement of how the results fulfill the overall goal of the project. Too often, project statements with a collection of objectives do not show the reader how these objectives relate to one another. In developing the project plan with a number of objectives, discuss how the objectives help each other and utilize a diagram to demonstrate how fulfillment of one objective may be necessary before research progresses on the other objective. Explaining the role of each of the investigators in the project plan and how the participate and communicate in the overall project plan provides evidence of how the project integrates toward a common goal.

After the project plan is completed, read the entire plan as a research project and ask three questions. First, how does the project plan advance science? Second, how do each of the objectives relate to one another and integrate information? Third, how does the research team function together and what is the role of each individual?

The Lead Scientist and/or their Research Leader may collaborate to apportion writing objectives, but as Lead Scientist you bear ultimate responsibility for your project plan.

Your decision to include sensitive information should depend on whether you can demonstrate that the project can be understood by reviewers without it.

The duration for a project plan starts on the date the plan is scheduled to complete the peer review and be implemented, through the end of the next scheduled peer review. All plans written for a panel review should have a duration of 60 months.  Please see the Peer Review Schedule, which includes the minimum duration for project plans written for an ad hoc review. 

The names on the coversheet should reflect the scientists who are doing the work, but please identify non-ARS scientists as such. The SY years calculation is for ARS scientists only. You do not need to list collaborators, just those whose work is being described. Both non-ARS scientists and ARS scientists must turn in a conflict of interest list.

Yes, and you should. Your Research Leader and/or National Program Leader will likely give you suggestions for discussing the relationship your project has with other ARS projects. Your CRIS search should also reveal associated projects.

No. The panel’s assignment is to evaluate your plan. None of the review criteria require an understanding of the project’s funding status. However, you may mention the role extramural agreements have in the outcome of your research.

Yes. 

It depends upon the nature of your research. Not all research is hypothesis-driven. For more information see hypothesis-driven research and non-hypothesis driven research.

All ARS projects are reviewed through OSQR on a five year cycle, in order to gain constructive input on the quality and direction of the research. Although this peer review attempts to put each project on a sound course for five years, it is possible that situations external or internal to your project, during the five year period, may result in a significant change to one or more of the project plan’s objectives. If this occurs at least two years prior to the next scheduled peer review, the lead scientist and team members will be instructed to revise and submit an updated project plan for a new review through OSQR.

A change is deemed significant when modifications are made to a current project plan’s objectives that would a) introduce the need for expert input that was not provided during the original panel peer review, b) incorporate a new research approach that was not presented in the original plan, c) add one or more objectives that were not inherently described with at least an outlined experimental design in the existing plan, or d) result from a reassignment of objectives from projects that were not previously peer-reviewed.

It is up to the Research Leader (or NPL) to alert the Laboratory/Institute/Center Director, Area Office, and the appropriate National Program Leader(s), about alterations or changes and for consultation and concurrence that the change is significant.

Page limits are prescribed to encourage project plan writers to be concise and organize their plan in a logical manner. Peer reviewers consistently agree that the page limits are appropriate. 

The panel review constitutes the group's consensus advice. Individual panelist's reviews are not released. 

All panel recommendations should be given consideration.  While you are not required to accept all suggestions, you should provide a rationale for your acceptance or nonacceptance of each. 

For an ad hoc review you may receive several reviews from individual experts, rather than one review that represents a panel discussion.  Where possible, OSQR has assembled mini-panels to perform ad hoc review.

No, project plan due dates are firm so as to allow panels sufficient time for their review. 

No.  Your project plan is how you "talk" with the panel.

When an ARS research project plan is reviewed through OSQR, it receives an Action Class score and a set of recommendations. The action class score expresses, in a general way, the degree of revision necessary to bring the quality of a project plan to the highest level. The consensus recommendations provide specific guidance for revision.

The ARS-OSQR review scale consists of five action classes: No Revision, Minor Revision, Moderate Revision, Major Revision and Not Feasible. Precise definitions are given in the OSQR Peer Review Manual. For purposes of comparison, however, the ARS-OSQR scale is considered roughly equivalent to the NSF or USDA-NRI scales of Excellent through Poor.

One significance of Action Class scores is that they define an ARS quality threshold for implementation of the research described in the project plan. 

Also Action Class scores, in aggregate, constitute a readout of the general quality profile characteristic of ARS research project planning, and by inference, the quality profile of ARS research. 

While OSQR does not manage personnel actions stemming from the peer review, your Area in consultation with Human Resources and Development, has set performance criteria with regard to the review process.

The main component in the criteria, for both supervisory and non-supervisory Category 1 scientists, is basically one of cooperation. On a multi-SY project, you may be evaluated on how well you interact and contribute in putting the project plan together with other members of the team. Moreover, especially if at a supervisory level, you may be evaluated on how well you interact with the Area and NPS through the various steps in making the project plan. Fundamental to putting the plan together is that it is coherent and a well-written document. Your goal in preparing your project plan should be to gain the highest action class, 'No Revision Required'. Also, if the peer review of your project plan results in recommendations for improvement, you may also be evaluated on how well you incorporate or respond to these recommendations in your revised plan. Lastly, meeting deadlines for submission of documents is important to the peer review process. Your performance evaluation may be based on how you meet these deadlines. You are encouraged to understand the peer review-related performance standards for scientists and Research Leaders and discuss them with your supervisor.

The Peer Review Process offers the following benefits to a scientist’s career:

• More feedback on methods and approaches that others have developed or other alternatives.
• Increasing awareness of the quality and breadth of ARS science outside the Agency.
• Continuous evaluation and review of project plans in pursuit of the most productive approaches in solving a problem.
• Increasing partnerships and collaborations to complete the project’s objectives. These collaborations can lead to development of joint research papers and invitations to present the results at scientific meetings because more people are aware of your efforts.
• Enhancing creativity by considering multi-year approaches, potential pitfalls, and interactions with colleagues.
• More opportunities to evaluate alternatives before experiments commence and to focus our thoughts.
• Identifying more stakeholders interested in the products from the research program and the “customer base” who want to see the research succeed and continue.

Send your comments to osqr@ars.usda.gov.

ARS research scientists and National Program teams actively nominate individuals to OSQR. This pool is much larger than the slots available for reviewers. While we appreciate and need the names of potential reviewers, we cannot assure that any specific individual will be assigned to a panel.

Only in very rare instances have ARS scientists served as reviewers.  While not forbidden by the authorizing legislation use of Agency scientists is discouraged.