FSP FAQs: Project Reporting and Cooperator Publications

Although USGS does not require or assign DOIs for cooperator publications, assignment of DOIs is a best practice to ensure long term access to a product. If they have the capability to do so, cooperators should assign a DOI or other persistent link to the information product. [Read more]

The FSP requirements for release of USGS scientific data and software associated with scholarly publications also apply to cooperator publications. Data and software management, publishing, and curation responsibility should be specified in data management plans. [Read more]

Yes. If data collection for a cooperator publication is USGS-funded, a publicly accessible data release is required prior to or simultaneously with release of the associated cooperator publication. An acceptable digital repository for the data release should be identified in the data management plan or agreement. [Read more]

A cooperator publication with scientific contributions from USGS authors, may include new interpretive information and is publicly released. Conversely, a progress report from USGS to a cooperator may contain only previously published interpretive or non-interpretive information, but cannot present new interpretations or conclusions of scientific results. [Read more]

A cooperator publication with scientific contributions from USGS authors is released by the cooperator on a publicly accessible website and is citable. Conversely, RFFIRs are limited-use USGS publication series information products prepared by the USGS and provided as confidential communications only to other government or international entities, and are not citable. [Read more]

Ensure the manuscript meets USGS standards for scientific quality, review, and approval in the USGS Information Product Data System (IPDS): at least 2 USGS-initiated rigorous peer reviews are obtained and reconciled; Bureau approval and final editing occur before the manuscript is in page proofs; the publishing and distribution location for the final publication are identified. [Read more]

Yes, all scientific information products, including those submitted to an agency that has provided funding to the USGS, must be peer reviewed and receive Bureau approval. [Read More]

A nonendorsement disclaimer statement, if appropriate, is the only statement that may be needed in a report of project progress that is noninterpretive or that includes interpretations only from previously published sources. Note, however, that published sources must always be cited.

Reports of project progress are not related to the collaborator/partner courtesy reviews. While both types of reporting may contain new, interpretive content, a progress report discusses the status of project work and a draft of a final project report provided to collaborators for courtesy review discusses the results of the project. [Read more]

Reports of project progress may be presented at a scientific conference, but sensitive, confidential, or proprietary information cannot be discussed. Peer review is at the discretion of the Science Center Director. FSP requirements for presentation materials that are left or not left at scientific meetings and conferences apply.

FSP review and approval of project progress depends on the content (new and interpretive findings versus noninterpretive or previously published information) and intended distribution of the report. [Read more]

If the project progress reports contain new interpretations, then the reports of project progress also require peer reviews, Bureau approval, and publication before being delivered to the greater community of stakeholders, steering councils, or cooperating groups who are not directly contributing to project activities. [Read more]