- Overview
SWSS is 5-year Cooperative Agree
(CA) through the Texas A&M Research Foundation to study the biology of
sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico and investigate possible effects of
seismic exploration, specifically the use of airguns. The effort
includes two specific BOEMRE reports subject to peer review by a
Scientific Review Board (SRB) and an open process to publish SWSS
results in professional publications subject to peer review processes
of the respective journals or other publishers.
Although subject to peer review, the Bureau considers the internal reports
as grey literature; the desired final goal is for investigators to
publish all substantial findings of SWSS as journal articles. The CA
clearly states this goal and supports preparation of manuscripts.
However, the determination to publish manuscripts and peer review
process for that determination rests with the publisher and is beyond
the Bureau control.
Peer-Reviewed Reports
:
- Three-year Summary Report:
- Summary chapters of work completed
through 3rd year
- Serves as progress/accomplishment
statement to all interested parties
- SWSS Final Report:
- Synthesis of all data collected
under SWSS
- A final report to interested
parties on work accomplished under SWSS including a synthesis of
findings and conclusions reached by investigators
- Manuscripts submitted to professional publications:
- Scientific results of SWSS in
final form
- Those findings of SWSS achieving
originality and quality standards for publication in
professional publications.
- Potential Impact
SWSS results often represent
significant new findings on sperm whales and include controlled
exposure experiments achieved for the first time. Within the field of
marine mammalogy, dissemination of results is likely to be influential
scientific information.
- Time Frame
Review of the Summary and Final
Reports includes a approximately 6-week timelines which includes
review and comments by the Bureau subject experts, funding partners of SWSS
(National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research, Industry
Coalition), in addition to review and comment by the SRB members.
Based on responses and complexity of responses, the Program Manager
can request additional time to prepare a final version or the need
for a second draft. In addition to peer review for scientific
content and quality, the BOEMRE reports are reviewed by an BOEMRE technical editor for
correct mechanics and formatting.
BOEMRE requests to see all manuscripts
submitted to external publications and to be informed, if published.
This is an administrative exercise to track SWSS products. The
peer-review process and timelines are those established by the
publisher.
- Manner of Review
The BOEMRE SRB for SWSS met as a group to hear verbal presentations and to
recommend procedures to prepare the Final Report. Each SRB member
reviews the draft Summary and Final Reports and submits a written
account to the SWSS Program Manager.
- Opportunity for Public Comment
SWSS is
a research effort with publications as the desired final product. Peer
review and comments are within the realm of sponsors and experts. No
public comment is incorporated formally in the process although public
comment/questions occur on SWSS presentations at the Bureau Information
Transfer Meetings and “letters to the Editor” is a common option for
published results.
- Peer Reviewer Access to Comments
BOEMRE will
not solicit public comments for SWSS.
- Expected Number of Reviewers
The SRB
is composed of five experts. Peer review of manuscripts varies with
the publisher.
- Requisite Expertise
SWSS is
a complex, multi-discipline research effort. The primary expertise
needed for a complete review would include whale biology, underwater
acoustics, and seismic operations.
- Selection of Reviewers
SRB
members were selected by consensus among SWSS funding partners and
agreement with the Texas A&M Program Manager. Without multiple funding
sources, the members would have been selected by the Bureau.
- Nomination Process
BOEMRE informally discussed peer
reviewers with scientific societies and selections were influenced by
external recommendations, but no formal nomination process was used.
