<div class="container_title"><h1>Privacy & Security</h1></div><div class="container_content">National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (<strong>NCBA) </strong>customarily uses a national solicitation and competitive grants process to select research projects worthy of support. The participation of scientists like you (a <strong>Scientific Reviewer</strong>) in evaluating grant proposals (<strong>Proposals</strong>) greatly enhances the effectiveness and credibility of our research program. <br /> It is our policy to require Scientific Reviewers to abide by the following as a condition of serving as a reviewer of Proposals. Please sign, date and check the “yes” box at the bottom to indicate your agreement to comply with our policy<br /> <br /> 1. <strong>Conflict of Interest </strong><br /> You will notify an administrator immediately if you believe you have a conflict regarding any Proposal you have been assigned to review and cease your review. You acknowledge that we will revoke the assignment.<br /> <br /> 2. <strong>Confidentiality/Use </strong><br /> You will maintain strict confidentiality of Proposals including, without limitation, the identity of the principal investigator (<strong>PI</strong>) and any other researcher named in a Proposal, the institution on whose behalf the PI has submitted a Proposal or the content of a Proposal. Among other things, this protects investigators from having their ideas exposed to unnecessary critique and discussion. In appropriate cases this does not preclude you from making discrete inquiries about protocol mechanics if the inquiries promise to improve the quality of your evaluation without risking disclosure of the source and nature of the Proposal. In addition, you will not use or permit others to use information, ideas or content contained in a Proposal.<br /> <br /> 3. <strong>Content of Review </strong><br /> Your review will, at a minimum, include evaluation of the clarity of Proposal objectives, appropriateness of experimental design & methods, cost estimates & timeline to establish the stated objectives, and investigator capabilities to carry out the Proposal. Please keep your review comments will be clear and to-the-point.<br /> <br /> 4. <strong>Format Requirements </strong><br /> You will note deviations from our general Proposal format requirements.<br /> <br /> 5. <strong>Understandability </strong><br /> The Beef Checkoff provides most of the funding for Proposals. Beef producers and/or other industry members with specific topic expertise on various advisory groups will advise staff on the final selection of Proposals to be funded. Please present your evaluations in a manner which is understandable to producers and enables them to assess the merits and demerits of Proposals in achieving stated objectives and fulfilling established priorities.<br /> <br /> 6. <strong>Disclosure of Comments </strong><br /> Your review comments are critical to the long-term integrity of our research program. You acknowledge that we will disclose them (without revealing your identity) to every investigator whose Proposal is not selected. We do this in hopes of helping the unsuccessful investigator make future Proposals which the Beef Checkoff will fund. You acknowledge we may also disclose your review comments (likewise without your identity) to Qualified State Beef Councils to assist them in evaluating Proposals submitted to them.</div>
Language
English (US)
Privacy & Security
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (
NCBA)
customarily uses a national solicitation and competitive grants process to select research projects worthy of support. The participation of scientists like you (a
Scientific Reviewer
) in evaluating grant proposals (
Proposals
) greatly enhances the effectiveness and credibility of our research program.
It is our policy to require Scientific Reviewers to abide by the following as a condition of serving as a reviewer of Proposals. Please sign, date and check the “yes” box at the bottom to indicate your agreement to comply with our policy
1.
Conflict of Interest
You will notify an administrator immediately if you believe you have a conflict regarding any Proposal you have been assigned to review and cease your review. You acknowledge that we will revoke the assignment.
2.
Confidentiality/Use
You will maintain strict confidentiality of Proposals including, without limitation, the identity of the principal investigator (
PI
) and any other researcher named in a Proposal, the institution on whose behalf the PI has submitted a Proposal or the content of a Proposal. Among other things, this protects investigators from having their ideas exposed to unnecessary critique and discussion. In appropriate cases this does not preclude you from making discrete inquiries about protocol mechanics if the inquiries promise to improve the quality of your evaluation without risking disclosure of the source and nature of the Proposal. In addition, you will not use or permit others to use information, ideas or content contained in a Proposal.
3.
Content of Review
Your review will, at a minimum, include evaluation of the clarity of Proposal objectives, appropriateness of experimental design & methods, cost estimates & timeline to establish the stated objectives, and investigator capabilities to carry out the Proposal. Please keep your review comments will be clear and to-the-point.
4.
Format Requirements
You will note deviations from our general Proposal format requirements.
5.
Understandability
The Beef Checkoff provides most of the funding for Proposals. Beef producers and/or other industry members with specific topic expertise on various advisory groups will advise staff on the final selection of Proposals to be funded. Please present your evaluations in a manner which is understandable to producers and enables them to assess the merits and demerits of Proposals in achieving stated objectives and fulfilling established priorities.
6.
Disclosure of Comments
Your review comments are critical to the long-term integrity of our research program. You acknowledge that we will disclose them (without revealing your identity) to every investigator whose Proposal is not selected. We do this in hopes of helping the unsuccessful investigator make future Proposals which the Beef Checkoff will fund. You acknowledge we may also disclose your review comments (likewise without your identity) to Qualified State Beef Councils to assist them in evaluating Proposals submitted to them.
