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.