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

Coordinator, should be continued for studies that are not
complex or controversial.

I

(6) Review panels composed of several experts are recommended for
large, complex, or controv~rsial research proposals. The
Recovery Program is currently using such panels related to
genetics conservation of the endangered fishes and restoration
of flooded bottomland habitats.

I

I

Such research projects may require a meeting or workshop between
the peer reviewer(s) and principal investigator(s) and perhaps a
site visit.

I

Integrated reviews involving several disciplines require a great
deal of time and are best accomplished through workshops where
informed discussions will provide guidance for preparation of
the final scope-of-work. If the subject matter is complex or
controversial, the use of a meeting facilitator is recommended
to keep the meeting focused and to obtain informed consent about
the thrust of the research proposal (i.e., subject, relevance to
the, Recovery Program effort, and approach to be used).

I

I

I

I

(7) All major comments received from peer reviewers should be
summarized by the appropriate Recovery Program Coordinator and
provided to the principal investigator(s) with recommendations
on whether or not the proposed studies should be funded. The
major comments of the peer reviewers should provide an objective
evaluation of the study proposal and recommendations for
improvement. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with the
principal investigator(s) to develop a sound, scientifically
credible study proposal. It would be desirable to provide the
name(s) and organization(s) of the peer reviewer(s) to the
principal investigator. However, anonymity requested by a peer
reviewer should be honored.

I

I

I

(8) It is also desirable that the principal investigator(s) be given
an opportunity to ask the peer reviewer(s) for guidance on
specific issues related to their proposed research, provided
that the peer reviewer does not request to remain anonymous.
Such dialogue between the principal investigator(s) and peer
reviewer(s) is extremely beneficial and should result in
improved research designs, analyses, integration,
interpretation, and application to management.

I

I

I

The Upper Colorado River Basin Recovery Program has approved the
concept of an independent peer review process and provided
justification for conducting the reviews (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1994). The peer reviewers supported this Recovery
Program thrust because it will ensure development of sound study
objectives, methods, and integration of research results on
recovery efforts for the endangered Colorado River fishes.

I

I

~4

I