Form ARS-199A Ad Hoc Peer Review of ARS Research Project

Project Title:

Lead Scientist: Project Number:

Name of the Review Session:

Reviewer ID Number: Date:

AD HOC REVIEW OF ARS RESEARCH PROJECT PLAN

________________________________________________________________________________

The purpose of this review is to judge the technical merit of the planned research and to make constructive comments for improvement. The principal focus of this research has been determined by ARS to be essential to its mission, and funding has been approved at the planned level. Please provide both qualitative ratings and comments on each review criteria. Please list and number each significant recommendation being made. Be sure to briefly state the rationale or basis for suggestions or questions. Recommendations may include specific questions you believe should be addressed by the lead scientist. Please select an action class at the end of this form to indicate the level of revision you believe the project plan requires.

________________________________________________________________________________

1. Adequacy of Approach and Procedures: Are the hypotheses and/or plan of work well conceived? Are the experiments, analytical methods, and approaches and procedures appropriate and sufficient to accomplish the objectives? How could the approach or research procedures be improved?

For Adequacy of Approach and Procedures please use the following format to organize your comments:

Overview of project and general review comments

Detailed review by Objective and Subobjective and/or hypothesis

Objective 1

Subobjective 1.1.

Strengths

Suggestions for improvement

Subobjective 1.n…

Objective n…

________________________________________________________________________________

2. Probability of Successfully Accomplishing the Project’s Objectives: What is the probability of success in light of the investigator or project team’s training, research experience, preliminary data, if available, and past accomplishments? Are the objectives both feasible and realistic within the stated timeframe and with the resources proposed? Do the investigators have an adequate knowledge of the literature as it relates to the proposed research?

________________________________________________________________________________

3. Merit and Significance: Are the project objectives relevant to the stated research goals and directions of the corresponding National Program? Will the successful completion of the project enhance knowledge of a scientifically important problem? Will the project lead to the development of new knowledge and technology? Are you aware of any other data/studies relevant to this research effort? If applied research, comment on the value of the research to its customers.

________________________________________________________________________________

Additional Comments or Suggestions:

Action Class Judgment

______ No Revision Required No Revision Required – Needs no revision, but minor revision might be made.

______ Minor Revision Required Minor Revision Required – Needs minor revisions, but objectives fit the National Program Action Plan; approaches to all objectives are sound. Project is Feasible.

______ Moderate Revision Required Moderate Revision Required – Moderate revision of an objective and/or one

approach is needed. Project is feasible.

______ Major Revision Required Major Revision Required – Project should be sound and feasible after major

revision.

______ Not Feasible Not Feasible – Project is not feasible because of deficiencies in expertise and/or

facilities, or has other major flaws that require a complete redesign and rewrite.

Public Burden Statement: According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0518-0028. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Office of Scientific Quality Review

5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705

301-504-3282

ARS-199A xx/xx/2012