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

Available information for conducting peer reviews in the literature is
limited. Most peer reviews are tailored for the agency requiring guidance
in evaluating and selecting research proposals.

I

A. Examples of the Peer Review Process bv Several Aaencies.

I

(1) The National Science Foundation employs program officers (about
350 persons in a full-time staff of about 1,200) who have are
scientifically qualified and have expertise in a given
discipline (McCullough 1993). About two-fifths of the program
officers are "visiting scientists" who are researchers
(experienced in directing major projects) that are on leave from
their institutions, usually for a two-year period. These
persons do not seek formal external review of small projects
(less than 5% of their total budget) but rely on their knowledge
of the literature in their field of expertise. On larger
research proposals, the National Science Foundation project
officer uses a peer review process. These program officers are
familiar with the literature in their disciplines and are
knowledgeable of experts. on the subject. About one-third of the
research proposals are handled by "ad hoc" reviews, another
third by an expert panel, and the remaining third by a
combination of "ad hoc" reviews and an expert panel. The "ad
hoc" reviews are made independently, sometimes by varying
numbers of peer reviewers. About 160,000 reviews are made
annually, generally by individual experts at their institution
or agency or review panels that may meet as a group to discuss
and evaluate the research proposals. Only in exceptional cases
does the team of external reviewers visit the site of the
principal investigator. These reviewers" rely primarily on well-
documented research proposals for their evaluation. Although
given a great deal of weight in the evaluation, the peer
reviewer's comments are considered advisory to the program
officer who considers the National Science Foundation policies
and priorities and relies on professional judgement in making
final decisions on the proposed research. The program officers
also negotiate the size of the grant with the principal
investigator (generally around 70% of the proposed amount) to
ensure that budgets are justified and priority research is
funded.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

(2) The Bonneville Power Administration (1994; BPA) conducts peer
reviews in a similar manner. The BPA project officer identifies
and selects professional colleagues for formal evaluations to
attain and maintain a high level of technical quality related to
proposed studies on fish and wildlife. The BPA project officer
also has frequent contacts with principal investigators that
allows monitoring of projects that have been approved. Such
contact is similar to that between Recovery Program Coordinators
and principal investigators. In addition, the BPA holds
periodic meetings in which the principal investigators give oral
presentations to their colleagues. The Colorado River Recovery

I

I

I

12

I