Surviving the Path to Peer Review Success Joyce Loper and Mike Strauss Office of Scientific Quality Review (OSQR) Why OSQR Review? 1998 Farm Bill  ARS research peerreviewed every 5 years  Most review panelists external to ARS  Satisfactory review before beginning research Stakeholder input Congressional Mandate National Action Plan Input Input Retrospective evaluation. Objectives set (PDRAM). You are here Assess Plan 4. Project Plan prepared. Annual progress reviews Implement Research initiated OSQR Review and Certification. “Life after the PDRAM…” FIRST: Review OSQR Handbook and Area/RL expectations -Plan Drafted lead scientist and project team -Review by other colleagues -Review by RL -Revision Revised plan to Area Office for approval (some require proof of outsider review) Approved Plan sent by Area to Office of National Programs Revision if Needed (through Area) Validation by National Program Leader Validated plan returned to Area Due to OSQR If needed, plan revised Red denotes established Dates for completion. Some Advice •Set a time line •Based on when the plan is due to the Area Office •What does your Area require? •Some want proof of review outside your group. •If not you should still send the plan outside your group for review. •Schedule time for: • Each member of the team to write •Members to coordinate plans •Lead scientist to compile a cohesive document •Colleagues to review the plan •RL to review the plan •Revision of the plan following review Who Oversees OSQR? Joyce Loper, ARS Scientific Quality Review Officer (SQRO) •Joyce approves each panel chair and panel member who participates in OSQR •Joyce is responsible for certifying that project plans have completed review Mike Strauss, OSQR Coordinator •With two staff members, Mike schedules all of the panels, contacts and trains all of the panel chairs and panel members, and coordinates the review and certification process. Both Mike and Joyce: •Attend panel meetings •Read your project plans •Read the OSQR reviews of your project plans •Read your responses to review What is OSQR Review? A Dialogue And … External Review Scientific Review Prospective Review Peer Review Quality Review Who are the Reviewers? Panelists are your colleagues. They read your peer-reviewed papers. Panelists are active scientists. Most are academics (per the Farm Bill). Panelist often know your work. And are often familiar with your excellence. Panelists take their task very seriously. The devote many hours to each review. They don’t want to give low scores! Who are the Reviewers? 1% 0% 2% 8% 13% 76% Academia Industry Govt Retired Former ARS Other How is a Panel Selected? OSQR Receives suggestions/nominations from ONP, Areas, others. All potential chairs are screened for COIs. Coordinator Interviews potential candidates and SQRO approves Chairs. Chairs work with Coordinator to develop a balanced, proposed list of panel members. SQRO reviews and approves final list of panelists. Reviewers NEED to know… What is the problem? Why is it important? Where are you going with it? How are you going to get there? And how will you know you have arrived? Don’t make them hunt for this! Aggregated Plans In some cases plans may be comprised of several independent pieces. In such cases be aware of… - Clarity…why are all these pieces here? What links them? State, however, that they are independent - Consistency…each piece should be equivalent in detail Someone needs to oversee the final product. - Content (flow)…is it an “easy read?” The general format is not rigid. Consider blending background and approach for each section. - “Consensus” First parts (summary, need for research, objectives…need to present the whole picture. The Message… By page 7 (Need for Research) reviewers should know: The subject of your research Why it is important What it will produce How you are going to get there The rest of the document will “flesh out” this but if the reviewers don’t know it by this point, they probably won’t get it easily from the rest of the document. Review Products • Action Class Score • Consensus review comments Project Review Criteria Adequacy of Approach and Procedures Probability of Successfully Accomplishing the Project’s Objectives Merit and Significance Document Outline Title and Investigators..………….page 1 Signature Page……………...........page 2 Table of Contents……….………….page 3 Project summary (250 words)...page 4 Objectives...…………..................page 5 Need for research (1-2 p) 15 - 30 pages Scientific Background (5-7 p) Approach & Procedures (6-15 p) Prior Accomplishments (2 p) Literature Cited Milestone Table (1-3 p) Past Accomplishments of Project Team Members Issues of Concern statements Appendices (letters plus other material) These are not boxes…they are guides to your narrative flow. Project Plan Components Project Summary – 250 words Write this in active voice. State the essential problem and why it is important. What have you done to date (1-2 sentences)? How will you address the issue? Why is this important? This is where you capture the interest of the reviewer. Make it compelling! Project Plan Components NEED FOR RESEARCH: 1-2 pages Where are you going? Express need scientifically AND in the context of NP Action Plan. Be concise in statement of research purpose. Discuss potential benefits and anticipated products. Identify relevant customers and stakeholders. Briefly note the principal methods you will utilize (e.g., …using microarray technologies we will elucidate…” Build upon, don’t repeat, the overview! Project Plan Components Objectives: 1-2 pages How does all this fit? Why are all these pieces here? How do they relate? Are there closely allied plans that bear on this work? A figure can help! Should reflect your plan and be a guide. - Objectives and sub-objectives - Personnel - Outcomes - Related projects Your plan can include 4 total pages of figures. Use them! Project Plan Components Scientific Background: 5-7 pages Why are you going there? Highlight knowledge gaps. Literature demonstrates understanding and gaps. Not an exhaustive. Show a rationale for the objectives. How will this fill knowledge gaps? Limit to 1/3 of project plan length Note similar projects within and outside ARS and how your past work prepares for or leads to this (provide details in the Prior Accomplishments section…but say enough to convince reviewers you know the area). Cite preliminary data from your projects, if available Project Plan Components Prior Accomplishments: 1-2 pages What have you done before? Highlighted briefly in the Background. Name prior project terminated within two years Major objectives and accomplishments Prior project investigators Impact of prior work (science, technology, users) Pertinent publications A table or chart of past data can be very helpful. Project Plan Components Approaches & Procedures: 6-12 pages How are you going to get there? Set out your Experimental design. Formulate REAL, testable, hypotheses! Describe approaches and methods any why they are appropriate. Discuss advantages and limitations (important if methods are “risky”). Illustrate how objectives can be achieved. Who will do what, how, and when (including collaborators and SCAs!) Describe nature and extent of collaborations, including SCAs Letters in Appendix need to confirm what you say! For SCAs, a copy of the agreement is sufficient. Include management, evaluation and contingencies. What is your path to success? How will you monitor it? Project Plan Components MILESTONES SummarizesAND the OUTCOMES project Goal or Hypothesis Goal or Hypothesis Dynamic over the project lifecycle Project Plan Checklist • Readability and narrative flow • Connection between parts (a diagram) • Appropriate roles for all • Appropriate expertise on team or from collaborators • Grammar/spelling/proofreading • Appropriate detail in Approach • Clear, proper, milestones • Real contingencies Does the plan instill confidence in this team’s abilities? OSQR Some Recent (frequent) Criticisms Real Hypotheses—Are they testable? NOT REQUIRED but don’t use a general goal where a hypothesis is better! Lack of connection--How/why do the parts of your plan relate? Or if part does not, why is it there? Uneven presentation—If different people wrote different parts, it will show! Context of plan—How does this fit with other similar work within and outside ARS? Statistically sound—Are replicates sufficient? How will you analyze…don’t just throw out jargon (“Data will be analyzed using ANOVA.”)…are replicates sufficient? When you’re done, will you be able to know if you arrived? “But we’ve always done it this way” is not sufficient. …More frequent Criticisms How will it get done?—Who does what? What other resources are there? (postdocs, technicians, students…include in human and physical resources) Vagueness that prevents real analysis—If the information is confidential say why you can’t tell them but say enough to allow some level of analysis. Risk without justification--Risk can be good but ONLY if it’s apparent you are aware of the challenge and have justified it. Data accumulation without analysis—It’s not enough to gather data, what will you do with it? To keep in mind… The reviewers need to see the logical “thread” through your work. Don’t make readers “search” for what you are doing! Be clear, accurate, and correct. Don’t assume reviewers know you and your work…(a poor plan may not be saved even if they do!) Some hints to success… Proofread Your Plan Ask a nontechnical person to read your plan Ask someone who hasn’t seen it to read and proofread your plan Ask a highly critical colleague to read it thoroughly. Are collaborations documented appropriately? Check hypotheses… Treat this the same care you would a competitive proposal. The reviewers will! Hypotheses 1. Don’t avoid them if appropriate but don’t force them if they are not. 2. Must be falsifiable and testable. 3. Not restatements of objectives. 4. May not be appropriate for work like breeding or germplasm characterization…but explain that! 5. Seek review by a statistician. Hypothesis Problems Too complex. Statements with “and” and “or” make it difficult to accept or reject. Wiggle words. “May” or “might” or “could”. If answer is to “try harder” it’s not a testable hypothesis. Misdirected. Statements like “Discovering the mechanism behind X will enable us to…….” test researchers not the experimental system itself. Statements of the obvious. “Disease results from expression of genes for virulence in the pathogen and genes for susceptibility in the host.” Not a science question. “Quantifying X will provide significant increases in income for the industry.” Sometimes a GOAL is preferable to an Hypothesis. We recommend: Nabel, Gary J., 2009 The Coordinates of Truth Science, 326 (5949): 53-54 What Happens After Review? No, Minor or Moderate Revision Lead Scientist responds to comments. Scientific Quality Review Officer certifies compliance with recommendations. Major Revision or Not Feasible Lead Scientist revises and responds to comments. Panel performs a second review assessing response to their comments and assigns a new Action Class Score. If still Major or Not Feasible, project is returned for administrative action. No further review. Projects are reviewed no more than two times (There are no page limits for revised plans) What Happens After Review? The Impact of Vertically Striped Voles (VSV) on Wheat, Rye, and Egg Production R. U. Kidding 1321-38000-123-00D Frontiers of Vole Biology and Relativity Theory 1/5/2006 Can I disagree with the panel? This is a dialogue If you really disagree…put it away for a few days! Then… Honestly consider panel opinions. Be polite but if you disagree say why DON’T skip changes to plan DON’T insult or impugn panelists DO provide justification for your alternative view Panels are NOT perfect…they are fellow scientists How not to disagree Q: The panel does not see any [expertise] in this plan. A: “I disagree.” [no explanation] Q: Can you provide some preliminary data to support this idea. A: “Yes, we have preliminary data but can’t/won’t show it to you.” Q: The panel suggests you try this approach. A: But that’s just too difficult. A: We’re not allowed to alter this project in any way. [not true!] A: We’ve done it our way for [x] years and see no reason to change. Q: This is not a hypothesis. Fix it or change to a goal statement. A: I looked at Tom’s plan and Bill’s and their panel didn’t make them do this so I don’t think I should have to do it. Q: Did you do a power analysis? A: No we did not, but we’ve always done it this way before. A. Yes. It said we needed more so we ignored it. Good to know… • A final copy of your responses the panel (for their information) after it is certified. • For plans scoring Moderate or higher, OSQR reviews the responses to assure they are thorough and appropriate; and may return them for additional work before certification if needed. • The Officer can decline certification if, after several attempts, it is judged that the researchers have not or cannot adequately address reviewer comments (i.e., your plan does not “pass” until it is certified). • For plans scoring Major Revision or below, while OSQR may briefly check to see if the responses are thorough and respectful…this is not a detailed review and does not assure panel re-review success. Last Words Proofread Seek Review then proofread and seek more review And lastly Proofread and Seek Review However… …Correct Grammar and Spelling are Important -- but not enough `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. Lewis Carroll Be thoughtful, clear, and thorough …and beware of overconfidence…