[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18236-18238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08689]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Research Service
Notice of Intent To Seek OMB Approval To Collect Information:
Forms Pertaining to the Scientific Peer Preview of ARS Research
Projects
AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described
below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB
implementing regulations. The Department is soliciting public comments
on the subject proposal.
DATES: Written comments on this notice should be submitted on or before
July 1, 2019.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning this notice should be directed to
the Director and Program Coordinator listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Marquea D. King, Director and
Program Coordinator, Office of Scientific Quality Review (OSQR),
Agricultural Research Service, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville,
Maryland 20705; Telephone: 301-504-3283; Fax: 301-504-1251; email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OSQR will seek approval from OMB to
update six existing forms to ensure that ARS can efficiently manage
data associated with the peer review of agricultural research. All
forms are transferred and received electronically and may include on-
line submissions in the future.
Abstract: The OSQR was established in September 1999 as a result of
the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act 1998
(``The Act'') (Pub. L. 105-185). The Act included mandates to perform
scientific peer reviews of all research activities conducted by USDA.
The office manages the ARS peer review system by centrally coordinating
all intramural peer review functions for ARS research projects on a 5-
year cycle.
Each set of reviews is assigned a chairperson to govern the panel
review process. Peer reviewers are external to the Agency and non-ARS
scientists. Peer review panels are convened to assess the technical/
scientific quality and correctness of each research project plan. Each
panel reviewer receives information on a range of two to five ARS
research projects.
On average, 150 research projects are reviewed annually by an
estimated 185 reviewers. Whereby approximately 130 are reviewed by a
panel and approximately 20 are reviewed through an ad hoc (written
review) process. The management and execution of this peer review
process is vastly dependent on the use of these forms.
The OSQR will seek OMB approval of the following forms:
1. Confidentiality Agreement Form: USDA uses this form to document
that a selected reviewer is responsible for keeping confidential any
information learned during the subject peer review process. The
Confidentiality Agreement is signed before the reviewer's involvement
in the peer review process. The form requires an original signature and
can be submitted electronically.
2. Panelist Information Form: USDA uses this form to gather the
most recent background information and diversity and inclusion data
about the reviewer, and information relevant to paying an honorarium
and travel expenses when needed. Sensitive information is transmitted
on this form and destroyed after payment is received.
3. Peer Review of an ARS Research Project Form (Peer Review Form):
USDA uses this form to guide the reviewer's expert comments in written
form on the assigned project plan. The form contains the criteria for
plan review and seeks the reviewer's narrative comments and evaluation.
3. Additional Reviewer Comment Form: This form is supplied to
members of a panel not assigned as a primary or secondary reviewer on a
particular project plan; however, it encourages additional expert
comments or recommendations for any plan regardless of a reviewer's
assignment as primary or secondary.
4. Ad Hoc Review Form: USDA uses this in select cases (e.g., for
reviewers not participating in a panel review). It contains a check-off
listing of action classes that allows reviewers to provide an overall
rating of the plan.
5. Recommendations for ARS Research Project Form (Recommendations
Form): USDA uses this form to guide the panel's evaluation and critique
of the review process. The form combines both primary and secondary
reviewers' recommendations of the research project plan.
6. Panel Expense Report Form (Expense Report): USDA uses this form
to document a panel reviewer's expense incurred traveling to and
attending a peer review meeting. The expense report asks reviewers to
list lodging, meal, and transportation expenses. When completed, the
form contains sensitive information and is held in compliance with ARS
travel guidelines. This form is used only in rare circumstance when a
panel meeting requires that reviewers travel.
(1) USDA's collection of information on the Confidentiality
Agreement Form is needed to document that a selected reviewer is
responsible for keeping confidential any information learned during the
subject peer review process. The Confidentiality Agreement would be
signed before the reviewer's involvement in the peer review process.
[[Page 18237]]
(2) USDA's collection of information on the Panelist Information
Form is needed to collect the most recent background information along
with diversity and inclusion data about the reviewer. It contains
sensitive information.
(3) USDA's collection of information on the Peer Review Form and
Reviewer Comment Form is needed to guide reviewers' comments on the
subject project. Both contain review guidance and space to insert
comments.
(4) USDA's collection of information on the Ad Hoc Review Form is
needed to guide reviewer comments of those not participating in a
chaired panel and affords a place to select an overall Action Class
rating for the plan.
(5) USDA's collection of information on the Recommendations Form is
needed to guide the panel's critique of the review process. It contains
the recommendations of the panel for the subject research project.
(6) USDA's collection of information on the Expense Report Form is
needed to document a panel reviewer's expenses incurred by attending a
peer review meeting. The Expense Report requests lodging, meal, and
transportation expense data. It includes sensitive information.
Estimate of Burden: The burden associated with this approval
process is the minimum required to successfully achieve program
objectives. The information collection frequency is the minimum
consistent with program objectives. The following estimates of time
required to complete the forms, based on previous OSQR experience with
our current business model.
1. Confidentiality Agreement Form (10 minutes completion time). The
reviewer must read and consider the terms of the agreement and then
sign and date the form.
2. Chair and Panelist Information Form (30 minutes completion
time). The reviewer provides standard personal and diversity
information, similar to that found in grant review programs.
3. Panelist Peer Review of an ARS Research Project Form (4-7 hours
completion time). Project page lengths will vary. Reviewers may freely
write as much as they wish and complete the form. To adequately
evaluate a research project plan that may exceed 60-70 pages in length,
each reviewer must thoroughly read each plan.
4. Reviewer Comment Form (60 minutes completion time). General
assessment of the plan with brief comments on the approach and
feasibility of the project and about one page.
5. Panel Recommendation for ARS Research Project Form (30-60
minutes completion time). The page length significantly varies among
panelist peer reviews and reviewer comments. All recommendation forms
are completed by the OSQR and further discussed and revised by the
reviewers as part of their panel discussions. In-person panels are
handled in the same manner.
5. Panel Expense Report Form (30 minutes completion time).
Respondents and Estimated Number of Respondents: Selected
scientific experts currently working in the same discipline as the
research projects being peer reviewed. These external experts are
credible peers to ARS. Annually, about 185 peer reviewers complete
these forms. Most all plans are discussed and deliberated via webinar
and telephone conferencing. Travel is not generally necessary. Thus,
reviewers are not expected to complete Panel Expense Reports.
Frequency of Response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Form respondents Annual frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Agreement......... 185 1 per respondent
(Total = 185).
Peer Review Forms (required and 200 2 per panel
assigned 2 plans). respondent (Total =
400).
Reviewer Comment Form (reviewer is 6 2 per panel
not assigned as primary or respondent (Total =
secondary review). 12).
Expense Report (in-person 6 1 per respondent
reviewers). (Total = 6).
Panelist Information Forms........ 185 1 per respondent/per
form (Total = 185).
Recommendations Form (non-online 82 2 per respondent
project reviews). (Total = 164).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
Form (time required to complete) completed Total burden
annually (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Agreement (10 minutes).. 185 31
Panelist Information Forms (30 minutes). 185 93
Peer Review Forms (~6 hours)............ 200 1,200
Recommendations Form (2 hour)........... 82 164
Reviewer Comment Form (1 hour).......... 6 6
Expense Report (30 minutes)............. 6 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chap.
35.
Comments: The Notice is soliciting comments from members of the
public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of
information to (1) evaluate whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the proper performance of ARS functions, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the
accuracy of the estimated burden from proposed collection of
information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including the
use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses). All responses to this notice will be summarized and
included in the request for OMB approval.
All comments will become a matter of public record.
[[Page 18238]]
Dated: March 27, 2019.
Simon Y. Liu,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural Research Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-08689 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P