FSP FAQs: Review
Fundamental Science Practices for all aspects of product reviews, including the number and type of reviews required for each product type, who may serve as a peer reviewer, rigor of peer reviews, review requirements for influential products as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and Bureau review and approval.
Who can conduct a names review? [206]
Anyone possessing appropriate subject matter expertise may complete a names review, separately or as part of a peer review. Reviewer should not be directly associated with work being reviewed. [Read more]
How do FSP review and approval requirements apply when a non-USGS scientist is the lead or senior author of a scientific information product? [034]
The FSP review and approval requirements apply to a USGS scientist who is a coauthor even if a non-USGS scientist is the lead or senior author. If the FSP requirements are not followed, the USGS scientist may not be listed as a coauthor.
Can supervisors and/or managers serve as peer reviewers for information products authored by employees they supervise and vice versa? [039]
No. For all USGS science information products an author and his/her supervisor are not allowed to serve as peer reviewers for one another, regardless of any collegial relationship or the expertise of either because doing so could be perceived as a conflict of interest. [Read more]
What are the recordkeeping requirements for peer review comments, peer review reconciliation, and draft documents associated with a given USGS information product? [040]
Peer review comments and reconciliation documents must follow the National Archives and Records Administration-approved recordkeeping schedule requirements found in USGS General Records Disposition Schedule, Chapter 1300. These short-term, temporary records must be retained by the Bureau for 3 years after publishing or until they are no longer needed for reference, whichever is later. [Read more]
What are the OMB requirements for peer review of influential products? [041]
The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review requires public posting of documentation about the planning and conducting of peer review for those information products that Federal agencies have designated as influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments (terms defined by the OMB). [Read more]
What are the categories of “Open Access” journals and what are the FSP peer review requirements for these products? [042]
Journal peer review processes—Category 1: anonymous peer reviews and draft manuscripts are not available to the public; USGS approval process for peer-reviewed journal articles is used. Category 2: peer reviews of draft manuscripts open to the public; two USGS-initiated peer reviews and Bureau approval are required before sending the manuscript to journal. [Read more]
What are the editing requirements for USGS science information products? [043]
Editing of USGS publication series scientific information products is required and must be coordinated or performed by the USGS Science Publishing Network (SPN). Review by SPN editors for other science information products, such as outside publications and web pages, is recommended but optional. [Read more]
How does the USGS comply with the OMB requirements for scientific information quality and peer review? [044]
The USGS Information Quality Guidelines website and the USGS Peer Review Agenda website help authors comply with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements regarding scientific information quality and peer review of influential products.
Are there any provisions for expedited peer review and Bureau approval? [045]
If it is anticipated that a scientific information product will need to be handled in an expedited manner, the author and (or) Science Center Manager should inform the Bureau Approving Official as soon as possible so that arrangements can be made for expedited approval. Expedited peer reviews should be arranged within the Science Center when the peer reviewers are selected.
If there is a difference of opinion between an author and her/his chain of command in regard to adequacy of response to peer review or in regard to scientific/technical interpretation, what are the options/avenues available to the author? [046]
If there is a dispute between the author and her/his supervisor, Center Director, or others in her/his chain of command regarding the adequacy of peer review or scientific/technical interpretation, the author may contact the Director or Deputy Director of the OSQI for assistance with the resolution of the differences. The author may also contact the FSP Advisory Committee for advice. [Read more]
What are cooperator publications and how are they addressed in FSP? [047]
Cooperator publications are released in full by the cooperating entity in a publicly accessible location and are clearly a cooperator's product and not a USGS product. Cooperator publications must receive at least two peer reviews, reconciliation, supervisory and science center approvals, and Bureau approval before release. [Read more]
What are the general FSP requirements for peer-reviewed journal submission? [048]
Peer-reviewed journal submissions require a minimum of two peer reviews. Bureau approval occurs after peer review reconciliation and before the reconciled manuscript is returned to the journal for possible acceptance. [Read more]
What is the FSP policy for submissions to an outside peer-reviewed journal that has its own peer review practices? [049]
A minimum of one USGS initiated peer review and one peer review by the journal are required. All peer reviews, regardless of the source, and their associated reconciliations, must be included in the package submitted for Bureau approval. [Read more]
What are the requirements for submitting manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals? What review and approval process should be followed? [050]
Manuscripts authored or coauthored by USGS scientists and intended for publication in peer-reviewed journals may follow one of two approaches for the peer-review and approval process as outlined in the FAQ. The selection of approach is at the discretion of the Science Center Director. [Read more]
Can Science Centers obtain additional peer reviews in excess of those minimally required by the USGS to aid in strengthening the scientific veracity of a manuscript before submitting it to a journal? [051]
Yes. Science Centers or authors may obtain any number of additional USGS-initiated peer reviews they deem necessary to strengthen the quality of a manuscript before submitting the manuscript to a journal. BAOs in the OSQI also have authority to require additional peer reviews. [Read more]
How will BAOs check the journal peer reviews and the associated reconciliations? [052]
The BAOs, when reviewing any peer reviews and reconciliations, check to ensure that FSP peer review requirements have been followed. All peer reviews (including all USGS and journal reviews) and all reconciliations that occur before Bureau approval must be submitted as part of the approval package to the BAOs before any reconciliations are sent back to peer-reviewed journals. [Read more]
Is a nondisclosure disclaimer statement to peer reviewers required? [053]
Yes. Manuscripts submitted for external peer review by any outside entity, including peer-reviewed journals, that have not received Bureau approval must carry the disclaimer statement about not disclosing or releasing the information being reviewed. [Read more]
What is the peer-review and approval process for a manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed journal as a book review, comment or reply, or manuscript for a special issue wherein the journal does not provide peer review? [054]
A minimum of two peer reviews is required for these product types. If the peer-reviewed journal does not provide peer review for the given type of submission, then the author must follow Approach 1. Two USGS-initiated peer reviews must be obtained and reconciled, the manuscript must be revised, and these components must be uploaded to the IPDS. [Read more]
Does editorial review by the journal editor count as a peer review? [055]
Maybe. In cases where the journal editor evaluates or critiques the science, the review may be counted as a peer review. In cases where the journal editor's review is editorial in nature only and no peer review is provided by the journal, an additional USGS-initiated peer review must be provided to meet the requirement for a minimum of two peer reviews. [Read more]
What requirements apply to USGS data made available in non-USGS acceptable digital repositories? [056]
For USGS data products stored in non-USGS repositories, review, approval, release, and preservation requirements apply. A copy of the metadata record that describes the data asset and includes a resolvable Digital Object Identifier (DOI), must be added to the USGS Science Data Catalog, using the individual metadata upload page. [Read more]
What is a metadata review, and who can perform it? [057]
A metadata review includes both checking for compliance with metadata standards by using a recommended metadata validation tool and performing quality checks. A minimum of one metadata review by a qualified reviewer is required for all USGS scientific data prepared for release. The role of the metadata reviewer is to evaluate the accuracy, completeness, and usability of the metadata. [Read more]