§7613. Relevance and merit of agricultural research, extension, and education funded by the Department — Inbound Citations
7 U.S.C. § 7613
Code of Federal Regulations Citations
Cited by 9 regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations.
-
(cliii) Establish procedures that provide for scientific peer review of each agricultural research grant administered on a competitive basis, and for relevancy and merit review of each agricultural research, extension, or education grant administered on a competitive basis, by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (7 U.S.C. 7613(a)).
-
(101) Consider the results of the annual review performed by the Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board regarding the relevance to priorities of the funding of all agricultural research, extension, or education activities conducted or funded by the Department and the adequacy of funding when formulating each request for proposals, and evaluating proposals, involving an agricultural research, extension, or education activity funded, on a competitive basis, by the Department; and solicit and consider input from persons who conduct or use agricultural research, extension, or education regarding the prior year's request for proposals for each activity funded on a competitive basis (7 U.S.C. 7613(c)).
-
(121) Establish procedures that provide for scientific peer review of each agricultural research grant administered on a competitive basis, and for relevancy and merit review of each agricultural research, extension, or education grant administered on a competitive basis, by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (7 U.S.C. 7613(a)).
-
(16) Consider the results of the annual review performed by the Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board regarding the relevance to priorities of the funding of all agricultural research, extension, or education activities conducted or funded by the Department and the adequacy of funding, when formulating each request for proposals, and evaluating proposals, involving an agricultural research, extension, or education activity funded, on a competitive basis, by the Department; and solicit and consider input from persons who conduct or use agricultural research, extension, or education regarding the prior year's request for proposals for each activity funded on a competitive basis (7 U.S.C. 7613(c)).
-
(ii) Each region will announce RFAs and solicit proposals. These proposals must be peer reviewed by panels in a manner similar to the system of peer review required by section 103 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613), and may include representation from Federal and State laboratories, the national laboratories, and private and public interest groups, as appropriate. The Centers and Subcenter may use implementing regulations found in §§ 3430.31 through 3430.37 as a guideline for appropriate peer review standards. Additional guidance may be provided by NIFA. To ensure consistency across the regions, prior to announcing the regional RFAs that will be used to solicit proposals, the Centers and Subcenter must provide NIFA the RFAs for approval by the designated NIFA program contact, as identified in the NIFA program solicitation. The Centers and Subcenter shall award subgrants on the basis of merit, quality, and relevance to advancing the purposes of the Sun Grant Program.
-
Section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2)) requires the Secretary to solicit and consider input on each program RFA from persons who conduct agricultural research, education, and extension for use in formulating future RFAs for competitive programs. NIFA will provide instructions for submission of stakeholder input in the RFA. NIFA will consider any comments received within the specified timeframe in the development of the future RFAs for the program.
-
(a) NIFA is responsible for performing a review of applications submitted to NIFA competitive award programs in accordance with section 103(a) of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7613(a)). Reviews are undertaken to ensure that projects supported by NIFA are of high quality and are consistent with the goals and requirements of the funding program. Applications submitted to NIFA undergo a programmatic evaluation to determine the worthiness of Federal support. The scientific peer review or merit review is performed by peer or merit reviewers and also may entail an assessment by Federal employees.
-
(a) To ensure any project receiving funds from NIFA is consistent with the broad goals of the funding program, the content of each proposal/application submitted to NIFA will be evaluated based on a pre-determined set of review criteria. It is the responsibility of the Program Officer to develop, adopt, adapt, or otherwise establish the criteria by which proposals are to be evaluated. It may be appropriate for the Program Officer to involve other scientists or stakeholders in the development of criteria, or to extract criteria from legislative authority or appropriations language. The review criteria are described in the RFA and shall not include criteria concerning any cost sharing or matching requirements per section 103(a)(3) of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7613(a)(3)).
-
(a) BRDI peer reviews of applications are conducted in accordance with requirements found in section 9008 of FSRIA (7 U.S.C. 8108); section 103 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613); and regulations found in title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, sections 3430.31 through 3430.37.
United States Code Citations
Cited by 5 provisions in release 119-102.
Citations to 7 U.S.C. § 7613 as a whole
-
(B) determine the relevance and merit of proposals through a system of peer and merit review in accordance with section 7613 of this title;
-
(1) determine the relevance and merit of research under this section through a system of peer review established by the Secretary pursuant to section 7613 of this title; and
-
(II) determine the relevance and merit of proposals through a system of peer review similar to that established by the Secretary pursuant to section 7613 of this title; and
Citations to §7613(e)
-
(2) An extension activity for which merit review is conducted under paragraph (1) shall be considered to have satisfied the requirements for review under section 7613(e) of this title.
-
(h) Research carried out under subsection (c)(3) shall be subject to scientific peer review. The review of a project conducted under this subsection shall be considered to satisfy the merit review requirements of section 7613(e) of this title.