7862

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7862
• Author: Andrews, E. D., M. B. Bain, K. S. Lubinski, W. L. Minckley, J. A. Stanford, E. Wohl and R. S. Wydoski.
• Title: Highlights Of A Peer Review And Roundtable Discussion On The Relationship Of Streamflow, Geomorphology, And Food Web Studies In Recovery Of The Endangered Fishes In The Upper Colorado River Basin.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: Denver, Colorado.
• Copyright Material: NO

I

I

I

However, the information provided in the proposals is too vague or
incomplete for evaluation as to scientific merit through a peer review.
It is recommended that the scopes-of-work be written as research
proposals. Specifically, they should be written as complete study
proposals for all newly proposed work so that they contain sufficient
detail and can be evaluated through the peer review process.

I

A. Research Proposals.

I

(1) Title. The title should be concise but descriptive so that the
proposed study topic and relation to other topics is clear.

I

(2) Principal Investiaator(s). The principal investigator(s) and
organization(s) should be clearly identified in the research
proposal rather than the project leader who is the overall
manager of studies by an agency or field station. The past
experience and performance of the principal investigator(s) on
similar projects should be provided.

I

I

I

(3) Obiectives. The objectives should be precisely stated so that
the intended outputs are measurable (i.e., the quantity and
quality of the proposed action) with a defined target date for
completion.

I

(4) Relation to the Recovery Action Plan. In addition to
identifying the topic as stated in the Recovery Action Plan
(RIPRAP), the purpose and need of the study should be discussed
as background with an explanation of how it will help to solve
the issue or problem, wholly or in part. A literature review
related to the issue or problem should be concisely summarized
to help justify that the proposed study is necessary and its
relation to the published literature. The expected results or
benefits of the proposed study should clearly identified with a
discussion of how the results will be applied or integrated with
work from other studies or disciplines.

I

I

I

I

(5) Methods or Approach. The methods or approach should be
described concisely with references on the proposed methodes)
that provide a detailed description and application of the
methods. It would be desirable to provide rationale and
justification for the methodes) selected. The level of
precision or statistical tests to be performed should be
defined. The approach sections of the scopes-of-work were not
described in terms of statistically sound experimental designs.
This recommended expansion of the methods or approach section
will enable peer reviewers to evaluate information presented
relative to their scientific discipline or expertise.

I

I

I

(6) References. A literature cited or references section should
contain the literature relevant to the proposed study. Proposed
studies should contain a summary of pertinent published and
"grey" literature to ensure that the proposed study will be

I

9

I