Laserfiche WebLink
<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" reviews and an expert panel. The "ad <br />hoc" reviews are made independently, sometimes 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 Foundation policies and priorities and <br />relies on professional judgement in making final decisions on <br />the proposed research. The program officers also negotiate the <br />size of the grant with the principal investigator (generally <br />around 70% of the proposed amount) to ensure that budgets are <br />justified and priority research is 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 professional colleagues for formal evaluations to <br />attain and maintain a high level of technical quality of <br />proposed studi es on fi sh and wil dl ife. The BPA project offi cer <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 />Program has a similar process that is used during the annual <br />Upper Colorado River Basin researchers meeting. The BPA project <br />officer may also select a Review Team that would meet prior to <br />conducting a project evaluation that may include a site visit. <br /> <br />B. Recommended Peer Review Process for the Upper Colorado River Basin <br />Recovery Proqram. Recovery Program documentation provides the <br />justification for an independent peer review process (U.S. Fish and <br />Wildlife Service 1994). The following steps are recommended for the <br />peer review process based on the approach used by the National <br />Science Foundation (McCullough 1993) and the Bonneville Power <br />Administration (1994): <br /> <br />(1) Peer reviewers should be selected on the basis of technical <br />knowledge and experience relevant to the subject proposed for <br />investigation. Care must be exercised in selecting colleagues <br />for the peer review to avoid any conflict of interest since most <br />persons who are knowledgeable about the Upper Colorado River <br />ecosystem are Recovery Program participants. <br /> <br />12 <br />