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 may review data and metadata? [124]
A qualified individual or separate individuals possessing technical expertise, familiarity with data may conduct data and metadata reviews. [Read more]
How do FSP requirements for release of scientific software compare to those for release of scientific data? [060]
USGS scientific software and data follow the same basic FSP requirements for review and approval and both are considered noninterpretive information. Both releases are subject to the requirements of the 2013 OSTP directive on increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research. [Read more]
What types of review are required before approval of scientific software for publication as a software release? [059]
Approval of scientific software requires two reviews—a code review and a domain review as described in this FAQ. A single reviewer can perform either review or both reviews. The reviewer(s) are selected by the software author with concurrence of a Science Center Director for their qualifications to perform such reviews. [Read more]
What is the review and approval process for news releases, letters to the editor, and opinion pieces? [058]
News releases, opinion pieces (commonly called op-eds), and letters to the editor are under the purview of the USGS Office of Communications and Publishing (OCAP) and are governed by review, approval and release processes as detailed in SM 500.5. Refer to delegated Bureau approval authority for additional information about approval of scientific news media products. [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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]