Laserfiche WebLink
PRRIP—ED OFFICE DRAFT 05/10/2014 <br /> 182 Barels said looking at the list, are these documents that would factor into GC decision-making, or are <br /> 183 publications there just to present results after the GC make decisions? Barels said he thinks the only <br /> 184 things that should be published are items that are complete, have results, and that the GC has made <br /> 185 decisions with.Besson said he does not think publication will resolve differences of opinion on issues and <br /> 186 the focus should be on working through the Program peer review process to resolve disagreements at that <br /> 187 level. Farnsworth said in most cases we try to use something on the order of 10-15 lines of evidence and <br /> 188 several of the items on the publication list are smaller pieces that help us find the right lines of evidence to <br /> 189 use and are the basic science behind those lines of evidence. <br /> 190 <br /> 191 Barels said if something relates to decision-making, it should be run through the Program's peer review <br /> 192 process and maybe there are different levels of peer review that could be used. LaBonde asked if <br /> 193 publishing offers some finality to the work we have done and can be used in the biological opinion, court, <br /> 194 etc. Bards said he likes the approach of having a straw dog manuscript and seeing if it makes it through <br /> 195 the TAC process and ends up being recommended to the GC for publication. Campbell asked what the <br /> 196 value of publication is if articles can get published that maybe aren't the best in terms of quality. <br /> 197 LaBonde said he would favor publishing more not less to help with the scientific credibility of the <br /> 198 Program down the road. Barels said it would probably be wise to have the TAC discuss peer review <br /> 199 options("mini peer review") and work through different levels of peer review instead of moving things to <br /> 200 publication. Campbell said the TAC should also look strategically at the items/issues/documents that <br /> 201 really need to be addressed as we move closer to negotiations for a Second Increment. Kenny said there <br /> 202 should be some serious thought about a mini peer review process to accelerate review and get things <br /> 203 moving on review so information can be more quickly used in decision-making. Publication is the final <br /> 204 standard and publication in a top journal can be a lengthy process to meet that standard of finality and <br /> 205 admissibility. <br /> 206 <br /> 207 Ament asked if we can agree that we include a mini peer review process and walk away from this meeting <br /> 208 with an agreement on how to proceed. LaBonde said based on the guidance provided in 2013 State of the <br /> 209 Platte Report, our focus should be on moving Big Questions to thumbs up or down and it seems like <br /> 210 focusing on Program peer review should be our initial step. Besson said maybe the test is consensus on a <br /> 211 study could mean it should be published,but disagreement over a document or issue should remain in the <br /> 212 peer review and internal discussion environment. The forage fish issue would fit this approach—there is <br /> 213 consensus on that issue so it could be moved to publication. Besson said developing a manuscript for the <br /> 214 stage change study would also be a good test of the process. Sellers indicated that the TAC recommended <br /> 215 to the GC to proceed with manuscripts for the Vegetation Scour and Lateral Erosion study and the forage <br /> 216 fish analysis which are already partially complete and of the highest priorities on the list. <br /> 217 <br /> 218 Kraus said the Program has decided we will do peer review and we shouldn't be debating whether we will <br /> 219 do peer review or not. The discussion should be about what to review, when, and how we get things <br /> 220 through that process. Kenny said is his understanding is we take this back to the TAC, discuss the <br /> 221 process, bring forward test cases for publication with the stage change study and the forage fish analysis, <br /> 222 and we evaluate a mini peer review process. Sellers clarified that it should be Vegetation Scour and <br /> 223 Lateral Erosion study and the forage fish analysis. <br /> 224 <br /> 225 Pathfinder Scoring <br /> 226 Besson summarized the results of the work of the Scoring Subcommittee to score the Pathfinder project. <br /> 227 LaBonde said he does not see an action item on the agenda but the memo recommends accepting the <br /> 228 score. <br /> PRRIP March 11-12,2014 GC Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 <br />