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

The format used by the Recovery Program for research proposals contains the
relevant topics. However. the information provided in the study proposals
that were reviewed was too vague or incomplete for evaluation by the peer
reviewers as to scientific merit or how the results may be integrated with
other disciplines. It is recommended that scopes-of-work for initiating new
studies should be written as research proposals that will contain adequate
information for a peer review. Specifically. (1) The objectives need to be
written as measurable outputs with a target date for completion; (2) The
relation of the study to the Recovery Program should describe the results
expected and how the results will be integrated into the overall recovery
effort; and (3) The methods or approach section should contain a concise
description of the methods (including advantages and disadvantages) with
references so that peer reviewers will have sufficient information for
evaluation.

Application of a systems approach in preparation annual reports should be used
for (1) evaluation of the data collected during the past year. (2) comparison
of data collected previously. (3) summary of accomplishments during the past
year. including an evaluation of whether objectives were accomplished. and (4)
refinements in experimental design. if necessary. for ongoing projects.

Recovery Program documentation provides the justification for an independent
peer review process. Peer review of proposed new scopes-of-work can be
reviewed independently by three peers with knowledge or expertise on the
subject. following the current practice by the Recovery Program. Larger.
complex. or controversial research proposals would be best reviewed by a peer
review panel such as the panels currently being used by the Recovery Program
for genetics conservation or flooded bottomland restoration. It is
recommended that larger initiatives that are complex or controversial be
evaluated through a workshop with the peer reviewers and principal
investigators after the peers have independently reviewed the proposal (s).

Finally. peer reviewers highly recommended that available information from
Recovery Program studies be analyzed. synthesized. and integrated. They
perceived that informed decisions could often be made with the available
information for recovery of the endangered Colorado River fishes that can
become a success story.

2