Peer Review Plan for Sperm Whales Seismic Study (SWSS)

Content:
qualityinfo@mms.gov

Pagemasters:
OMM Web Team

MMS Peer Review Plan

Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS)

Overview
SWSS is 5-year Cooperative Agree (CA) through the Texas A&M Research Foundation to study the biology of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico and investigate possible effects of seismic exploration, specifically the use of airguns. The effort includes two specific MMS reports subject to peer review by a Scientific Review Board (SRB) and an open process to publish SWSS results in professional publications subject to peer review processes of the respective journals or other publishers.

Although subject to peer review, MMS considers the internal reports as grey literature; the desired final goal is for investigators to publish all substantial findings of SWSS as journal articles. The CA clearly states this goal and supports preparation of manuscripts. However, the determination to publish manuscripts and peer review process for that determination rests with the publisher and is beyond MMS control.
Peer-Reviewed Reports:
1. Three-year Summary Report:
  - Summary chapters of work completed through 3rd year
  - Serves as progress/accomplishment statement to all interested parties
2. SWSS Final Report:
  - Synthesis of all data collected under SWSS
  - A final report to interested parties on work accomplished under SWSS including a synthesis of findings and conclusions reached by investigators
3. Manuscripts submitted to professional publications:
  - Scientific results of SWSS in final form
  - Those findings of SWSS achieving originality and quality standards for publication in professional publications.
Potential Impact
SWSS results often represent significant new findings on sperm whales and include controlled exposure experiments achieved for the first time. Within the field of marine mammalogy, dissemination of results is likely to be influential scientific information.
Time Frame
Review of the Summary and Final Reports includes a approximately 6-week timelines which includes review and comments by MMS subject experts, funding partners of SWSS (National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research, Industry Coalition), in addition to review and comment by the SRB members. Based on responses and complexity of responses, the Program Manager can request additional time to prepare a final version or the need for a second draft. In addition to peer review for scientific content and quality, the MMS reports are reviewed by an MMS technical editor for correct mechanics and formatting.

MMS requests to see all manuscripts submitted to external publications and to be informed, if published. This is an administrative exercise to track SWSS products. The peer-review process and timelines are those established by the publisher.
Manner of Review
The MMS SRB for SWSS met as a group to hear verbal presentations and to recommend procedures to prepare the Final Report. Each SRB member reviews the draft Summary and Final Reports and submits a written account to the SWSS Program Manager.
Opportunity for Public Comment
SWSS is a research effort with publications as the desired final product. Peer review and comments are within the realm of sponsors and experts. No public comment is incorporated formally in the process although public comment/questions occur on SWSS presentations at MMS Information Transfer Meetings and “letters to the Editor” is a common option for published results.
Peer Reviewer Access to Comments
MMS will not solicit public comments for SWSS.
Expected Number of Reviewers
The SRB is composed of five experts. Peer review of manuscripts varies with the publisher.
Requisite Expertise
SWSS is a complex, multi-discipline research effort. The primary expertise needed for a complete review would include whale biology, underwater acoustics, and seismic operations.
Selection of Reviewers
SRB members were selected by consensus among SWSS funding partners and agreement with the Texas A&M Program Manager. Without multiple funding sources, the members would have been selected by MMS.
Nomination Process
MMS informally discussed peer reviewers with scientific societies and selections were influenced by external recommendations, but no formal nomination process was used.

Date: December 16, 2005

Privacy | Disclaimers | Accessibility

Home | Search | Topic Index | About MMS | What's New

Last Updated: 05/31/2007, 09:37 PM