[LTER-im] How do you prepare for site reviews?

[Gastil Gastil-Buhl]

Hi Marty and site IMs,

Preparation for the MCR LTER mid-term review really began soon after the
grant cycle began, or you could even say it began right after the previous
mid-term review. Datasets obviously are ongoing and not done at the last
minute; having said that, I was glad I announced a deadline for any new
datasets well ahead of time. The preparation of presentation materials
began about 3 months prior, with many drafts and lots of feedback from
within our site and IM colleagues.

The only advice that may not be obvious is BE OPEN with your reviewer. We
did not hide the challenges and complexities, the frustrations with how we
would like things to work (such as data citation in journals) versus
reality. If your reviewer is an IM themselves, or that type of role outside
of LTER, they may share these challenges and appreciate such a discussion.
Our reviewer's data system is also a DataONE member node so we discussed
the challenges involved with that, for example. Our reviewer was impressed
with how we track the current status of all the datasets, including
categories such as "cancelled" because they could appreciate the reality.
We pointed out a dataset which did not have new data within 2 years and
showed specifically the reason and our remediation plan. Much better to do
that then have them red-flag you! Our reviewer understood and did not fault
us for it. Do not sweep dust under the rug. That's only for the
presentation to the scientists, who want to believe data management is just
"done", check-the-box, no details.

I put the main materials we used for the MCR LTER mid-term review IM part
into a folder in the directory Marty made for us. There was also a
15-minute presentation in Moorea that Andy presented for me, since I was
not on the island this time. We did not record it but I could look for the
slide deck, if that's wanted. It was written for the non-IM participants,
the scientists.

Our IM reviewer was not from LTER but was somewhat familiar with LTER data
management, more so than most outsiders. The program officer provided their
own one-page guideline for review which looks like a shortened version of
the one the IMC wrote, a subset. The IM review was done about 4 weeks
before the on-site review so my initial timeline was accelerated. It was
done online, for 5 hours, in 2 sessions. Then on-site there was another
zoom to cover new questions.

The review went well.

Gastil


On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:54 PM Marty Downs <downs at nceas.ucsb.edu> wrote:

> Dear LTER IMs,
> We have 3 brand new sites facing their first reviews this year (after only
> a little over 2 years of funding). Can you share your wisdom to help them
> prepare?
>
> If you just want to jot down a few notes and share them here on the IM
> list, that's fine. If you prepared more extensive materials for recent
> reviews and are willing to share them, we have a shared google drive that
> is private to LTER information managers. Access it here:
> https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0AABt1FqIzosUUk9PVA (while
> logged in to a gmail-associated account). Go to site-review-sharing-2019.
>
> If you'd rather just email things to me, I can also upload them.
> Thanks,
> Marty
>
> --
> Marty Downs (she/her/hers)
> Director, LTER Network Office
>
>
>
> https://lternet.edu
> t: @USLTER
> f: USLTER
>
> National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS)
> University of California, Santa Barbara
> Office: 805-893-7549
> Cell: 617-833-7930
> downs at nceas.ucsb.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Long Term Ecological Research Network
> im mailing list
> im at lternet.edu
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lternet.edu/pipermail/im/attachments/20200123/18f24208/attachment.html>