Form 1 CSR Review- 2012 IRG Survey- screen shots

2012 IRG Stakeholder Survey

This is a survey preview. Responses will not be collected.
Click here to hide this frame

2012 IRG Stakeholder Survey
OMB Control Number: 0925-0474 Expiration Date 10/31/2014
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated
to average 15 minutes 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. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to: NIH, Project Clearance Branch, 6705 Rockledge Drive,
MSC 7974, Bethesda, MD 20892-7974, ATTN: PRA (0925-0476). Do not
return the completed form to this address.
Thank you in advance for participating in the 2012 IRG Stakeholder
Survey at the National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific
Review. We are in the process of examining the effectiveness of
NIH/CSR Integrated Review Groups and your input is very important to
us.

Regarding your participation in the NIH/CSR study section review
meetings, please respond to the following statements.

Roster quality (expert review)

1. Considering both the applications typically reviewed
in the study section you served on and the need to
ensure a balanced and diverse panel- the roster of the
study section you served on is an assembly of qualified
and respected scientists with expertise well matched
to application content.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

Reviewer training (communication of role, policy, practice, and expectations)
2. Training in policy provided by the SRO allowed the
panel to be able to discharge its duties competently.

http://www.csr.nih.gov/Inquisite/cgi-bin/qwebcorporate.cgi?idx=G4B5DP&preview=1[4/25/2013 4:40:38 PM]

2012 IRG Stakeholder Survey

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

3. Training in practice and procedures provided by the SRO
allowed the panel to be able to discharge its duties
competently.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

4. Expectations of diligence and the importance of
deadlines were clearly explained to the panel by the SRO
before the meeting.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

5. The expertise of reviewers was appropriately
matched to application content (please consider the
need to balance reviewer workloads and ensure broad
perspective).
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

6. Reviewers used the following sources for
information when they needed it (check all that apply)
CSR Website
The SRO
The Chair
Other Reviewers
Colleagues and friends

Meeting management (implementation of policy and practice)
7. Rate the panel, as a whole, on its ability to identify
the most promising science.
The panel recognizes significant ideas and is not risk averse when
voting impact scores
The panel recognizes significant ideas but is risk averse when
voting impact scores
The panel is risk averse when voting impact scores and does not
recognize significant ideas
The panel is not risk adverse when voting impact scores and does
not recognize significant ideas

8. Oral presentations by the reviewers at the meeting

http://www.csr.nih.gov/Inquisite/cgi-bin/qwebcorporate.cgi?idx=G4B5DP&preview=1[4/25/2013 4:40:38 PM]

2012 IRG Stakeholder Survey

were indicative of careful preparation.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

9. Oral presentations by the reviewers at the meeting
were indicative of demonstrated scientific insight.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

10. In preparation for the meeting, how many
critiques by colleagues did you read?  (insert
number in box)

11. The SRO exhibited
leadership and competence
during the pre-meeting and
meeting phases of the study
section by:

Strongly
Agree
agree

Neither
agree
Strongly
Disagree
nor
disagree
disagree

Recruiting appropriate reviewers:
Making appropriate application assignments:
Conducting an informative pre-meeting
teleconference:
Training Reviewers:
Managing discussions in collaboration with
the Chair:
Clarifying policy questions:

12. The Chair was well prepared for the meeting.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

13. The Chair conducted the scientific discussions in a
respectful and professional environment.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

14. Written critiques were informative and scientifically
insightful.
Strongly agree

http://www.csr.nih.gov/Inquisite/cgi-bin/qwebcorporate.cgi?idx=G4B5DP&preview=1[4/25/2013 4:40:38 PM]

2012 IRG Stakeholder Survey

Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

15. At the meeting, the discussions were scientifically
insightful and the panel was able to identify the most
promising applications in a fair and rigorous manner.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

16. Considering all of the above
factors, how would you rate the
overall quality of the most recent
study section that you participated
in? (please rate only one study
section)

1
2
Outstanding

3

4

5

6

7

8

Behavioral Genetics and Epidemiology (BGES)
Cardiovascular and Sleep Epidemiology (CASE)
Epidemiology of Cancer (EPIC)
Infectious, Reproductive, Asthma and Pulmonary
Conditions (IRAP)
Kidney, Nutrition, Obesity and Diabetes (KNOD)
Neurological, Aging and Musculoskeletal Epidemiology
(NAME)
Social Issues and Population Studies (SSPA)
Social Issues and Population Studies (SSPB)
Societal and Ethical Issues in Research (SEIR)

Thank you for your responses, please click on 'finish' to complete
the survey.
Finish

Save

http://www.csr.nih.gov/Inquisite/cgi-bin/qwebcorporate.cgi?idx=G4B5DP&preview=1[4/25/2013 4:40:38 PM]

9
Poor