Difference between revisions of "Research Reports and STAA"

From aemwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: = Proposal for elevating ORD Research Reports for Science and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) == == 1. Only ORD Research Reports shall be eligible for nomination from the Divisio...)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
= Proposal for elevating ORD Research Reports for Science and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) ==
+
= Proposal for elevating ORD Research Reports for Science and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) =
  
== 1.  Only ORD Research Reports shall be eligible for nomination from the Division. ==
+
== 1.  ORD Research Reports shall be eligible for nomination from the Division. ==
  
 
What is an ORD Research Report?  
 
What is an ORD Research Report?  
Line 10: Line 10:
 
EPA/ORD’s research findings. These reports are normally the most authoritative results of a research project on a critical area of interest in which the Agency is involved.
 
EPA/ORD’s research findings. These reports are normally the most authoritative results of a research project on a critical area of interest in which the Agency is involved.
  
Presentation
+
'''Presentation'''
  
 
Present research reports in classic textbook style—clear, concise
 
Present research reports in classic textbook style—clear, concise
prose. Follow “Report Specifications” in Appendix B.  
+
prose. Follow “Report Specifications” in Appendix B (of the Handbook).  
  
Content
+
'''Content'''
  
 
A research report will fit into one of two broad categories:
 
A research report will fit into one of two broad categories:
investigative or expository.
+
'''investigative''' or '''expository'''.
  
 
In a standard investigative report, results and conclusions, the
 
In a standard investigative report, results and conclusions, the
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
1. Introduction
 
1. Introduction
 +
 
2. Conclusions
 
2. Conclusions
 +
 
3. Recommendations
 
3. Recommendations
 +
 
4. Methods and materials
 
4. Methods and materials
 +
 
5. Results and discussion
 
5. Results and discussion
 +
 
6. References
 
6. References
  
Line 77: Line 82:
 
== 2.  Peer Review Process ==
 
== 2.  Peer Review Process ==
  
== 3.  Nomination Process for STAA  ==
+
The Branch Chief or Division Science Director shall monitor the peer review process of the manuscript.  A potential Research Report will need to have a minimum 2 external reviewers and 1 editorial review.  The external reviewers will have the option to remain anonymous.  The reviewers will be given the definition of an ORD Research Report and asked whether the manuscript meets the standard as is, with minor modification, with major modification, or would be better published in another form of EPA report: e.g., Project Report, User Guide, etc. 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== 3.  Evaluation Guidelines for STAA  ==
 +
 
 +
The Research Report will be subjected to the same evaluation guidelines as journal articles and book chapters:
 +
 
 +
*  The extent to which the work reported in the nominated paper resulted in either new or significantly revised knowledge. The accomplishment should represent an important advancement of scientific knowledge or technology relevant to environmental issues.
 +
 
 +
*  The degree to which the accomplishment is a product of the originality, creativeness, initiative, and problem-solving ability of the researchers as well as the level of effort required to produce the results.
 +
 
 +
*  The extent to which environmental protection has been strengthened or improved, whether of local, national, or international importance.
 +
 
 +
*  The extent of the beneficial impact of the accomplishment and the degree to which the accomplishment has been favorably recognized from outside EPA.
 +
 
 +
*  The nature and extent of peer review, including stature and quality of the peer-reviewed journal or the publisher of a book for a review chapter published therein.

Revision as of 11:56, 22 January 2008

Proposal for elevating ORD Research Reports for Science and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA)

1. ORD Research Reports shall be eligible for nomination from the Division.

What is an ORD Research Report?

(from EPA/600/K-95/002, August 1995 aka the Handbook)

The research report is a book-length presentation of the best of EPA/ORD’s research findings. These reports are normally the most authoritative results of a research project on a critical area of interest in which the Agency is involved.

Presentation

Present research reports in classic textbook style—clear, concise prose. Follow “Report Specifications” in Appendix B (of the Handbook).

Content

A research report will fit into one of two broad categories: investigative or expository.

In a standard investigative report, results and conclusions, the evidence to support them, and the interpretation of that evidence are the most important inclusions. The background of the project and the methods used should support the results and recommendations. Structure the body of an investigative report as follows:

1. Introduction

2. Conclusions

3. Recommendations

4. Methods and materials

5. Results and discussion

6. References

In the introduction, focus on the hypothesis or problem that the study tests. Place the conclusions and recommendations before other matter in the body of an investigative report because this allows the reader ready access to the full scope of the project. Methods, results, and discussion may be interwoven or addressed separately, as logic dictates.

An expository report sheds additional light on a topic or an area of high interest about which information is lacking. It is more informal and discursive in nature than an investigative report in the sense that its structure is not bound by the scientific method. Its organization is therefore looser than that of the investigative report; however, where possible, use the same format elements as the investigative report.

Weight the text of a research report in favor of explanatory copy, and do not include large volumes of backup and unedited data, repeatedly used figures of government or other organizational forms, or verbatim reprints from or transcripts of other printed information sources (e.g., the Federal Register). These inclusions would detract from the classic format of the book, run up the cost excessively, and are more appropriately referenced as secondary sources than printed. Footnote or reference all background materials where appropriate to enable the reader to locate them in the library, through NTIS, or through the appropriate information databases.

The effective use of appropriate referencing and footnoting techniques is absolutely necessary to increase the credibility of the document and fulfill the purpose of the presentation. Careful documentation shows that a research project has been thoroughly investigated. Referencing systems vary among scientific disciplines. Whatever system you use, be consistent and make each reference complete.

See the Handbook for guidance on printing.

DO WE NEED TO UPDATE ANY OF THIS GUIDANCE?

I PROPOSE THAT A PRODUCT NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR ACCEPTANCE AS A RESEARCH REPORT DURING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS, JUST AS A MANUSCRIPT IS SUBMITTED TO A JOURNAL FOR ACCEPTANCE. (STEVE K)

2. Peer Review Process

The Branch Chief or Division Science Director shall monitor the peer review process of the manuscript. A potential Research Report will need to have a minimum 2 external reviewers and 1 editorial review. The external reviewers will have the option to remain anonymous. The reviewers will be given the definition of an ORD Research Report and asked whether the manuscript meets the standard as is, with minor modification, with major modification, or would be better published in another form of EPA report: e.g., Project Report, User Guide, etc.


3. Evaluation Guidelines for STAA

The Research Report will be subjected to the same evaluation guidelines as journal articles and book chapters:

  • The extent to which the work reported in the nominated paper resulted in either new or significantly revised knowledge. The accomplishment should represent an important advancement of scientific knowledge or technology relevant to environmental issues.
  • The degree to which the accomplishment is a product of the originality, creativeness, initiative, and problem-solving ability of the researchers as well as the level of effort required to produce the results.
  • The extent to which environmental protection has been strengthened or improved, whether of local, national, or international importance.
  • The extent of the beneficial impact of the accomplishment and the degree to which the accomplishment has been favorably recognized from outside EPA.
  • The nature and extent of peer review, including stature and quality of the peer-reviewed journal or the publisher of a book for a review chapter published therein.