pdf SCAR XXX WP19: External Reviews of Scientific Research Programmes (SRPs)

SCAR XXX WP19: External Reviews of Scientific Research Programmes (SRPs)

Background – the Review Process

The quality, the progress and success of SCAR’s Scientific Research Programmes (SRPs) is to be reviewed every 2 years in order to determine that SCAR is obtaining good value for its investment and that results are emerging at an appropriate rate. A 4-year review is to include external evaluations. This is time for the 4-year review.

The success of SRPs depends primarily on science carried out, funded and peer-reviewed within national programs and there is no wish to duplicate the scientific review process of national activities. SCAR adds value to national efforts by facilitating international collaboration and communication that might not otherwise occur. An assessment of the extent to which that value has been added through such collaboration is the objective of the review process, providing a basis for prioritizing the many competing demands on SCAR’s limited resources. If an SRP is judged to be deficient in its performance, SCAR will recommend changes to improve performance, or it may redirect funds to other more deserving activities. SRPs are also to be of a finite duration (6 to 8 years) allowing for the renewal and reinvigoration of the SCAR scientific portfolio on a regular basis. Reviews and assessments are used to encourage this replenishment.

The review process is not meant to be unduly burdensome and should be proportional to SCAR-provided funds. SRP leaders report biennially to the meetings of the Standing Scientific Groups and the SCAR Delegates. In the intervening years SRPS report to the Chief Officers of their Standing Scientific Groups who then report to the SCAR Executive Committee. Where feasible, SRP leaders should personally report to the SCAR Delegates. However, it is recognized that time and resources may not allow this, so the SRP reports can be made on behalf of the SRPs by the Chief Officers of the SSGs.

For the 4-year review of progress, the annual report of each SRP will be vetted by an independent external review group. The reviews will be provided to the Delegates meeting, along with the annual reports, to enable the Delegates to take make informed decisions about continued funding of the SRPs.

The plan was for each report to be reviewed by three external reviewers, by 31 May 2008. To the extent possible, reviewers should not be directly involved in the programme but should be knowledgeable about the demands of science in the Antarctic region (SRPs were asked for nominees). Reviewers evaluated the reports based on the evaluation criteria listed in this report. They were asked to comment on the extent to which each SRP has met the Terms of Reference, also given in the report.