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

Program has a similar process that is used during the annual
Upper Colorado River Basin researchers meeting. The BPA project
officer may also select a Review Team that would meet prior to
conducting a project evaluation and may include a site visit.

I

B. Recommended Peer Review Process for the Upper Colorado River Basin
Recoverv Proaram. Recovery Program documentation provides the
justification for an independent peer review process (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1994)." The following steps are recommended for the
peer review process based on the approach used by the National
Science Foundation (McCullough 1993) and the Bonneville Power
Administration (1994):

I

I

(1) Peer reviewers should be selected by the appropriate Program
Coordinator on the basis of technical knowledge and experience
relevant to the subject proposed for investigation. Care must
be exercised in selecting colleagues for the peer review to
avoid any conflict of interest since most persons who are
knowledgeable about the Upper Colorado River ecosystem are also
Recovery Program participants.

I

I

I

(2) Guidelines or standards for objective evaluation criteria should
be developed by the appropriate Program Coordinator to assist
the Peer Reviewers during their review and evaluation of newly
proposed research proposals. Research proposals should be
evaluated for scientific and technical merit so that the results
will contribute to the recovery effort.

I

I

(3) Peer reviewers must be provided with clear and complete research
proposals and annual reports following the guidance provided in
the section on "Content of Research Proposals and Annual
Reports" so that they have adequate information to evaluate the
proposed work.

I

I

(4) Reviews of newly proposed research should be made with peer
reviewer(s) in a specific discipline or with a good working
knowledge of previous studies on the Upper Colorado River Basin.
The peer reviewers should be provided with proposed scopes-of-
work, previous annual reports, and other background information
that would useful in their evaluation.

I

I

(5) In general, proposed research projects can be reviewed by a peer
reviewer at their institution or agency. Questions about
specific items can be discussed by telephone between the peer
reviewers, principal investigators, or Program Coordinator. In
some instances, additional information can be furnished to the
peer reviewer by FAX or e-mail.

I

I

The current practice of the Colorado River Recovery Program to
have newly proposed research by three independent peer
reviewers, who are selected by the appropriate Program

I

13

I