Cedar Creek Natural History Area

Conducting Research at Cedar Creek

Research Proposal Review Procedures

The policy articulated here is instituted to provide speed, consistency and reliability in the review process. It is our goal to complete the review process within 10 days of electronic submission of a proposal. Exceptions to this 10-day interval may occur if complex questions or issues arise during the review process.

The Research Review Board will consist of the Associate Director of Cedar Creek and four members appointed by the Associate Director after consultation with the Director. In the temporary or permanent absence of the Associate Director, either the Director or someone appointed by the Director will fill the duties specified for the Associate Director. The four appointed members of the Research Review Board will have overlapping 2-year appointments. Board members can be chosen from all Ph.D. level scientists actively pursuing research at Cedar Creek (whether from the University of Minnesota or another institution) and from any University of Minnesota faculty/staff familiar with research at Cedar Creek. Prior service does not preclude consideration for appointment or reappointment.

All proposals for new experiments at Cedar Creek are to be electronically submitted to the Associate Director (Dr. Jeffrey Corney, jcorney@umn.edu). The format for a proposal includes an Abstract (250 word maximum) and is given below and at www.cedarcreek.umn.edu. The Associate Director will acknowledge the receipt of each proposal.

Upon receipt, the Associate Director will examine and categorize each proposal according to whether it represents (A) Extensive destructive sampling, experimental manipulations, the potential for lasting impacts, or the potential to impact existing studies or areas zoned for protection; (B) Minor manipulation and/or observation without lasting effect on the habitat or on other existing studies; or (C) Work that is obviously outside the scope of what is permissible at Cedar Creek or outside the scope of Cedar Creek's mission.

Those research proposals in Category C will be returned forthwith with an explanation from the Associate Director to the author(s), with a copy of the proposal and correspondence sent to the Director and to the Research Review Board.

The Associate Director will immediately electronically send a copy of any proposal in Categories A or B to all Cedar Creek researchers, including Review Board members. The Board will be told, at this time, to begin reviewing any proposal in Category A. Moreover, all Cedar Creek researchers will have a chance to submit comments (especially any comments on potential conflicts with existing projects) to the Associate Director during the next 5 days after proposal submission.

After consideration of any comments received on a proposal, those research proposals in Category B may be approved by the Associate Director without further review.

Comments on those research proposals in Category A will be electronically distributed to all members of the Research Review Board (except not to a member with significant conflict of interest, i.e., if the proposal was written by that member or that member's student or post-doc, etc.) for consideration as part of the formal review process. Board members may and should discuss proposals freely among themselves, such as by e-mail, and the board may convene to discuss major and difficult cases before rendering their opinions. Within seven days of the time of submission of a proposal, each member of the Board and the Associate Director will write a brief review of the proposal, and will tentatively recommend approval, rejection, or modifications. These reviews will be distributed to all members of the Board, and collated by the Associate Director. A proposal receiving a majority of Board recommendations for its approval will be approved unless the Associate Director feels that the review process has raised issues that merit further discussion by the Board and/or modifications to the proposal. The Associate Director may request further discussion by the Board, or modifications to the proposal by its authors, and one or more additional rounds of voting after receiving modifications and/or after discussion.

If the Board has significant questions, suggestions, or objections that lead to a recommendation for modifications, copies of the reviews will be sent back to the researchers with a cover letter requesting clarification or revision. If modifications are requested, the review process may well exceed the original time goal. Modified proposals receiving a majority of Board recommendations for approval will be approved.

If any board members do not feel they have sufficient expertise to evaluate a specific proposal, they should recuse themselves from voting. Furthermore, if board members have significant conflicts of interest with respect to a specific proposal, they must recuse themselves from voting on that proposal. The Associate Director may appoint a special reviewer to replace any Board member who does not contribute to the review process on a given proposal.

The members of the Research Review Board are to base their decisions on the Cedar Creek land-use rules and policies, and do not have power to change or exempt these rules and policies. If situations arise that suggest that the rules and policies need modification, the Board should so inform the Director. The Director will evaluate the recommendation, seeking guidance from the Land Use Committee, if at all possible, before granting any exemptions from rules.

Authors of approved or rejected proposals will be notified immediately of the decision, and will receive copies of all review comments.

Anyone whose proposal was rejected has the right to request reconsideration by the Research Review Board after providing it with responses to review comments and a modified proposal. The Board will provide a decision that articulates the basis of its decision in relation to Cedar Creek Land Use Policy. Anyone whose proposal is rejected after this process may petition the Director of Cedar Creek for reconsideration by providing additional comments and/or modifications to the research plan. The Director can either sustain the prior decision of the Board, recommend reconsideration by the Board based on the existence of significant modifications to the proposal, or recommend reconsideration based upon the Director's interpretation or clarification of the proposal or of relevant Cedar Creek Land Use Policy. Such an interpretation or clarification of Land Use Policy establishes a precedent that is binding on future Board decisions unless or until the Land Use Policy is modified by the Land Use Committee.