Long-term observing management and governance Webinar Theme 3, Review: frequency, criteria, process Image: freshspectrum.com

This is the third webinar in a thematic series devoted to commonly held questions related to long-term observing management and governance. The eight themes of this series are: 1.Definition 2.Lifecycle and Horizons 3.Review: frequency, criteria, and process 4.Network relevance 5.Funding models 6.Award structure and management 7.Information sharing and communication 8.National and global connectivity Past webinars have been recorded and archived on the ArcticHub.ArcticHub Our next webinar on Network relevance will be held on January 21 st at 1:30pm ET. Future events are posted on the ArcticHub and the SAON webpage. You may also click on the link “Subscribe to the calendar of webinars” on the ArcticHub to download an ics file to your personal calendar. Don’t forget that monies are available through ARCUS to host your own discussions on these management and governance topics. Please visit for more information. A fully networked design Image: Wolfgang Baumeister, CIPSM

What should the review process for long-term observing look like? Are there different review tools that are more appropriate to nascent, mid-life, or mature networks? Image: Nick Kim

Is there one model for evaluating all disciplines in observing networks? Do intellectual merit and broader impacts cover what is needed to evaluate a network? Are there other universal aspects of observing networks that should be reviewed? Are certain review criteria dependent on the maturity of the network? Should facility management, environmental safety, communication efficacy, and community engagement be reviewed separately from scientific merit? Would lower scores in any of these areas be grounds for a decline? Image: Julie Smith

How should multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary or integrated networks be evaluated? Given a developing science or new interdisciplinary approach, what is the best method for evaluating the science(s) within the network? Do multi-disciplinary panels work? How do panels fare with complex proposals? Image: Eli Stein

What are the key phrases that reviewers expect in a long-term observing effort? Image: George Huba

Should there be consideration in the review process for: logistical costs overhead and maintenance communication safety workforce education training data products accessibility interoperability social capital community relevance Should host facilities be reviewed separately from the integrated projects they support? Image: Michel Theriault

How can conflicts be dealt with in a truly networked design? We currently screen for conflicts that are: institutional collaborative mentoring monetary When all participants in a particular observing field are in conflict, who is appropriate to review? Images: PBS NewsHour; IOOC-US

What are the stages in the development of an observing design? Where are the key points for review? Image: CommDev/IFC/World Bank

What is the appropriate timeline for reviewing a long-term observing network? What are the criteria necessary to move a nascent network to a mid-term or multi-decadal network? What are the requirements for turning a network into a long-term facility? Does the review timeline change with maturity of the network? Image: New Zealand Digital Library Project/Greenstone Digital Library Software

What is the ideal ratings system for observing and monitoring? What weaknesses are acceptable? Do established observing efforts have What happens when weaknesses are an advantage over new projects? found in an established priority observing Should the two be reviewed effort that is deemed critical? separately? Image: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

What are the evaluation metrics for a long-term network? Are these different for an integrated network? Images: Zach Gemignani, Guy W. Wallace

What factor should risk play in an observing design? What factor should it play in funding decisions? Images: World Economic Forum

What role does innovation, improvisation, flexibility, and adaptability play in long-term observing? Should innovation be a key component at critical review stages or is quality maintenance of the information stream and observing structure satisfactory? I.e., if it isn’t broken, should I fix it? Are review processes and evaluation metrics sensitive to the need for stability in certain situations? Or, is the requirement to innovate a blessing in disguise even for long-term projects? Images: Emerald Insights; Owen and Dietz

What role should communities play in the selection and maintenance of long-term observing projects? Should community engagement be a review criteria for observing proposals? Should community review be part of the process and how should this be carried out? Should community review apply to all long-term observing proposals? Should additional conditions be made of long-term observing awards if the work will take place near or in a community? If so, what should those conditions be? Should the community be part of the process for determining renewal and continuance of long-term observing efforts? Image: Communication Initiative Network

How is participation in or leadership of observing and monitoring perceived by hiring bodies? Image: The Scientist Are graduate students and postdocs who focus on monitoring considered to be competitive for academic positions? How is monitoring science viewed by tenure or advancement committees? Does community or student participation in observing have merit beyond the activity, such as school credit or admission consideration? What other benefits do communities envision from monitoring participation?

Thank you for your participation in today’s webinar. Image: Indigenous Community Volunteers Australia

Please join us again on January 21 st at 1:30pm ET for the next webinar. If you have any questions about these webinars, the funding opportunity, or the ArcticHub, please direct them to