Appendix H: MRC Evaluation (Submitted)

Appendix H: Multistate Research Committee Evaluation Form

Each Multistate Research Committee member will receive this evaluation form as an e-mail attachment (or via other electronic means) with the project proposal and comments from the peer reviews, if available.

Impact Analyses and Decision Strategies for Agricultural Research
I. Statement of Issues and Justification
1a. Does the proposal convincingly address the extent of the problem and the importance to agriculture, rural life, consumers and science? Yes
1b. Does the proposal explain what the consequences are if the research is not done? Yes
2. Does the proposal adequately explain why this research should be conducted by multiple institutions and other entities (e.g. ARS/USDA) through a regional collaborative effort? Yes
3. Does the proposal indicate how the proposed research addresses national and/or regional priorities? Yes
4. Does the proposal describe the probable impacts from successfully completing the work? Yes
II. Related Current and Previous Work
1a. Does the proposal adequately explain how this research relates to previous work in this area and how the proposed work will supplement and extend knowledge in this area? Yes
1b. Was a CRIS search conducted? No
1c. Although a classical, in-depth literature review is not required, does the proposal cite appropriate literature? Yes
2. If the proposal is for a replacement project, are the accomplishments achieved under the previous project adequately reviewed with identification of those areas needing further investigation? Yes
3a. Does this proposal duplicate research being conducted through other multistate projects? No
3b. Did the Development Committee specifically address potential duplication and, if potential duplication exists, did the committee specifically addressed how duplication will be avoided? No
III. Objectives
1. Are the research objectives clear and appropriate for the desired outcomes? Yes
2. Does the proposal clearly indicate the level of participation of each institution and other participating entities (e.g., ARS/USDA, Cooperative Extension, private industry, etc.) for each objective? Yes
IV. Methods(Procedures)
1. Is a procedure or approach outlined for each objective stated in the proposal? Yes
2. Is collaboration and/or interdependence such as the user of common protocols, central data collection or analysis, sharing of equipment, common use of research sample or data, or other evidence of direct collaboration described in the proposal? Yes
3. Are research responsibilities of all participants clearly stated? No
4. Is there a plan for how the research findings will be tied together in a collaborative manner on a regional basis? Yes
V. Measurement of Progress and Results
1. Outputs: Does the proposal describe expected outputs from the research? Yes
2a. Outcomes and Impacts: Does the proposal describe the significance of the results, showing in what ways the end user will benefit? Yes
2b. Does the proposal adequately explain the potential benefits and impacts of the proposed research? Yes
3. Milestones: Does the proposal include statements related to milestones; that is, time-linked accomplishments that must be complete before subsequent activities can begin or can be completed? No
VI. Participation (Resources) Report
1. Does the proposal include a complete "Projected Participation Report" as prescribed in Appendix E of the Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities? No
2. Does the project represent a multistate participation, which builds on specific strengths of the participants into a cooperative and complementary research project? Yes
3. Does the project include the appropriate mix and balance of disciplinary expertise to address the objectives? No
VII. Outreach Plan
1. Does the proposal describe how results of the project are to be made available in an accessible manner to the intended users of the information (e.g., refereed publications, workshops, producer field days, etc.)? Yes
2. If the proposed project is to become an integrated (multifunctional) activity involving participants from Cooperative Extension, is the nature of their involvement adequately described? No
VIII. Organization
1. If the organization of the technical committee is so different from that prescribed in the Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities, does the proposal include an adequate description of the planned organizational structure of the technical committee? Yes
IX. Scientific Quality
1. Does the proposal show evidence of high scientific quality? Yes
2. If copies of peer reviews have been provided, has the Development Committee adequately addressed the concerns and comments provided by the peer reviews? No
X. Format
1. Is the proposal formatted as prescribed in Appendix A of the Guidelines for Multistate Research Activities? Yes
A very timely and necessary body of work in the agricultural economics frame. However, components of understanding technology adoption and diffusion that involve human behavior would be stronger with the inclusion of a core group of human behaviorist collaborators. This component is not well described in the narrative but is acknowledged as an important component of the larger project. While the authors have demonstrated their ability to be prolific, the milestones reach a limited audience and do not include specific mechanisms to integrate Cooperative Extension in the dissemination of project results.
Log Out ?

Are you sure you want to log out?

Press No if you want to continue work. Press Yes to logout current user.

Report a Bug
Report a Bug

Describe your bug clearly, including the steps you used to create it.