9396

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9396
• 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 - Final Draft Report.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: Grand Junction.
• Copyright Material: NO

.

(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.

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

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

(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
reviewer and principal investigator. In some instances.
additional information can be furnished to the peer reviewer by
FAX or e-mail.

The current practice of the Colorado River Recovery Program to
have newly proposed research by three independent peer reviewers
should be continued for studies that are not complex or
controversial.

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

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

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).

(7) All major comments received from peer reviewers should be
summarized by the appropriate Recovery Program Coordinator and

13