Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Available information for conducting peer review. in the literature i. <br />limited. Most peer reviews are tailored for the agency requiring guidance <br />in evaluating and selecting research proposals. <br /> <br />A. Examoles of the Peer Review Process bv Several Aaencies. <br /> <br />(1) The National Science Foundation employs program officers (about <br />350 persons in a full-time staff of about 1,200) who have are <br />scientifically qualified and have expertise in a given <br />discipline (McCullough 1993). About two-fifths of the program <br />officers are "visiting scientists" who are reeearchers <br />(experienced in directing major projects) that are on leave from <br />their institutions, usually for a two-year period. These <br />persons do not seek formal external review of small projects <br />(less than 5' of their total budget) but rely on their knowledge <br />of the literature in their field of expertise. on larger <br />research proposals, the National Science Foundation project <br />officer uses a peer review process. These program officers are <br />familiar with the literature in their disciplines and are <br />knowledgeable of experts on the subject. About one-third of. the <br />research proposals are handled by "ad hoc" reviews, another <br />third by an expert panel, and the remaining third by a <br />combination of "ad hoc" review. and an expert panel. The "ad <br />hoc" reviewe are made independently, sometimee by varying <br />numbers of peer reviewers. About 160,000 reviews are made <br />annually, generally by individual experts at their institution <br />or agency or review panels that may meet as a group to discuss <br />and evaluate the research proposals. Only in exceptional cases <br />does the team of external reviewers'visit the site of the <br />principal investigator. These reviewers rely primarily on well- <br />documented research proposals for their evaluation. Although <br />given a great deal of weight in the evaluation, the peer <br />reviewer's comments are considered advisory to the program <br />officer who considers the National Science Foundation policies <br />and priorities and relies on professional judgement in making <br />final decisions on the proposed research. The program officers <br />also negotiate the eize of the grant with the principal <br />investigator (generally around 70' of the proposed amount) to <br />ensure that budgets are justified and priority research is <br />funded. <br /> <br />(2) The Bonneville Power Administration (1994; BPA) conducts peer <br />reviews in a similar manner. The BPA project officer identifies <br />and selects profeseional colleagues for formal evaluations to <br />attain and maintain a high level of technical quality related to <br />proposed studies on fish and wildlife. The BPA project officer <br />also has frequent contacts with principal investigators that <br />allows monitoring of projects that have been approved. Such <br />contact is similar to that between Recovery Program Coordinators <br />and principal investigators. In addition, the BPA holds <br />periodic meetings in which the princIpal investigators give oral <br />presentations to their colleagues. The Colorado River Recovery <br /> <br />12 <br />