Fundamental Science Practices Frequently Asked Questions

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]

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.

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Depending on the product or product content, Bureau approval authority (formerly Director's approval) is delegated to Science Center Directors and to Bureau Approving Officials (BAO)s in the Office of Science Quality and Integrity (OSQI). Refer to SM 205.18 for detailed information on the approval authority for various scientific information products. [Read more]

Approval is granted via the IPDS. The following documents are required: original manuscript; revised manuscript; for USGS-series and journal submissions, editor comments and directions in original form; all original peer reviewers' comments and all manuscript markups; a reconciliation document addressing all substantive peer review comments and any directions from the editor. [Read more]

For brief comments, the BAOs will use the comment box in the IPDS and indicate changes needed on the manuscript as necessary. For more extensive comments, the BAOs will provide a memorandum attached as a supporting document in the IPDS or as notes and tracked changes in the approved manuscript that indicates changes needed in the manuscript as necessary. [Read more]