Review of the Food-borne Zoonoses Research ... - ARCHIVE: Defra
Review of the Food-borne Zoonoses Research ... - ARCHIVE: Defra
Review of the Food-borne Zoonoses Research ... - ARCHIVE: Defra
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Defra</strong>’s FBZ <strong>Research</strong> Programme, 26 th – 27 th November 2007<br />
ASSESSMENT FORM – EXTERNAL REFEREES<br />
PROJECT CODE(S):<br />
APPRAISED BY:<br />
DATE:<br />
The scores and comments you provide will be used for a range <strong>of</strong> purposes, including (1) to inform <strong>Defra</strong><br />
personnel (2) for feed back to <strong>the</strong> project leader(s) and (3) for possible inclusion in <strong>the</strong> review output<br />
document (which will be published on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Defra</strong> website). Please note that while a list <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> review panel<br />
members will be publicly available, with reference to points 2 and 3, <strong>the</strong> scores and comments provided by<br />
each referee will not be directly attributed to <strong>the</strong>m, but ra<strong>the</strong>r referee 1, referee 2 etc. However, you should<br />
be aware that Departmental correspondence, including peer review processes, fall within <strong>the</strong> remit <strong>of</strong><br />
regulations that permit greater access to information, including Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information, Environmental<br />
Information Regulations and <strong>the</strong> code <strong>of</strong> practise on access to government information. In <strong>the</strong> event that<br />
peer review information (such as <strong>the</strong> names <strong>of</strong> peer reviewers and <strong>the</strong> comments <strong>the</strong>y made) should<br />
become <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> such a request, <strong>the</strong> Department will seek to protect <strong>the</strong> interests <strong>of</strong> peer reviewers in<br />
<strong>the</strong> light <strong>of</strong> legal requirements.<br />
Instructions: Please assign a score and provide written comments where necessary.<br />
Scores should be based on a 1-5 scale, where:<br />
1 = Not at all 2 = Partial 3 = Satisfactory 4 = Good 5 = Very Good<br />
1. Relevance and appropriateness for R&D funding by <strong>Defra</strong><br />
2. Soundness and appropriateness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scientific approaches<br />
and methods<br />
3. Appropriateness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> contractors, sub-contractors and<br />
collaborators (e.g. personnel and facilities)<br />
4. Rate <strong>of</strong> progress to date in achieving <strong>the</strong> aims and objectives<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research<br />
5. Probability <strong>of</strong> success (if <strong>the</strong> research is ongoing)<br />
6. Conclusions based on sound evidence<br />
7. Dissemination <strong>of</strong> findings<br />
8. Quality <strong>of</strong> science<br />
9. Value for money<br />
10. Overall rating (it is important to provide a score here)<br />
110