NIJ's Standing Scientific Review Panels

On this page find:

About NIJ's Standing Scientific Review Panels

The Standing Scientific Review Panels (SRPs) represent a renewed commitment by NIJ to the scientific work that is at the heart of NIJ’s mission. A high-quality science agency must rely on a high-quality peer review process. By adopting SRPs, NIJ is following a model for peer review that has been developed and tested and is now relied on by most federal science agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Institute of Education Sciences.

NIJ is confident that standing peer review panels will help us make better decisions about the research investment our agency makes. Based on the results from two years of SRPs, NIJ decided to continue to use SRPs in our grant peer review processes.

Learn more about NIJ's traditional peer review panels and how to serve on them.

SRP Structure and Function

An SRP consists of about 18 permanent members, each of whom serves a two-year term. Ad hoc members may be appointed for a single term to fill in for a permanent member who cannot serve in a given year or to provide needed expertise. In order to establish a rotating two-year membership, some members may be asked to serve for an additional year.

SRPs convene in Washington, D.C., for two to three days in May or early June of each year. At the meeting, the full panel discusses the most competitive applications and provides final review scores for each application. 

Before each SRP’s meeting, two of the scientists on the panel are assigned to conduct an initial written merit review of each of the proposals. In most cases, each two-person team can expect to review about 10 proposals. They have approximately three weeks to complete their review before the panel convenes. Each team leads the full panel in its evaluation of those proposals when the panel convenes. The full panel reviews and scores all of the proposals that pass the initial merit review.

Nominating Peer Reviewers

To be considered for NIJ's SRPs or other peer review panels, please register on NIJ's Consultant Information System Exit Notice.

Fiscal Year 2013 Members of the Standing Scientific Review Panels

  • Aaron Brudenell*, Arizona Department of Public Safety, Southern Regional Crime Laboratory
  • Eric Buel*, State of Vermont Forensic Laboratory (Ret.)
  • Michael Buerger, Bowling Green State University
  • Noël Busch-Armendariz, University of Texas at Austin
  • Thomas Busey, Indiana University
  • Marc Buslik*, Chicago Police Department
  • Timothy Cadigan*, Chesterfield Associates
  • Rebecca Campbell*, Michigan State University
  • Edward Carapezza*, General Atomics
  • Thomas Casady*, Lincoln (Neb.) Police Department
  • Richard Conners, Virginia Tech
  • Jan De Kinder*, Nationaal Instituut voor Criminalistiek en Criminologie
  • Charles DiMaggio*, Columbia University
  • Frank Domizio, Philadelphia Police Department
  • Christopher Eckhardt*, Purdue University
  • John Erickson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
  • M. Jay Farr*, Arlington County Police Department
  • Janette Flintof*, Los Angeles City Attorney
  • Ed German, U.S. Government
  • Janet Girten*, Colorado Bureau of Investigation
  • Michael Gorn*, Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office, Forensic Services Section
  • Jon Gould*, American University
  • Sarah Greathouse, RAND Corporation
  • Marie Griffin, Arizona State University
  • Alan Harbitter, Harbitter Consulting, LLC
  • Barbara Hart, University of Southern Maine
  • David Hirschel*, University of Massachusetts, Lowell
  • Seth Hutchinson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Charles Katz, Arizona State University
  • Jessie Krienert, Illinois State University
  • Jonathan Kulick, Pepperdine University
  • David LaBahn, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
  • Thomas LeBel, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
  • TK Logan, University of Kentucky
  • Kall Loper, Southern Methodist University; Loper Forensic
  • Edward Maguire, American University
  • Christopher Maxwell*, Michigan State University
  • J. Thomas McEwen*, Institute for Law and Justice
  • Sarah McMahon, Rutgers University
  • Elizabeth Miller*, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC
  • Ojmarrh Mitchell, University of South Florida
  • David Mulholland, U.S. Park Police
  • Claire Renzetti, University of Kentucky
  • Dennis Rosenbaum, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • Barri Rosenbluth, SafePlace
  • Darrell Ross*, Valdosta State University
  • Barry Ruback*, Penn State University
  • Christopher Saunders*, South Dakota State University
  • Valerie Sessions, Charleston Southern University
  • Scott Shappell, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
  • David Slayton*, Texas Office of Court Administration
  • Cindy Southworth*, National Network to End Domestic Violence
  • Cassia Spohn, Arizona State University
  • Loretta Stalans*, Loyola University Chicago
  • Philip Stinson, Bowling Green State University
  • Ralph Taylor, Temple University
  • Jeff Temple, University of Texas Medical Branch
  • Rich Tolman, University of Michigan
  • Lawrence Travis, University of Cincinnati
  • Sarah Tucker, International Association of Forensic Nurses
  • Stephen Van Dine*, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
  • A.T. Wall*, Rhode Island Department of Corrections
  • Vincent Webb*, Sam Houston State University

*Fiscal Year 2012 Member

Fiscal Year 2013 Solicitations Reviewed by the Standing Scientific Review Panels

Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences [1]

  • Applied Research and Development in Forensic Science for Criminal Justice Purposes
  • Basic Research and Development in Forensic Science for Criminal Justice Purposes

Office of Science and Technology 

  • The Impact of Safety Equipment Modalities on Reducing Correctional Officer Injuries
  • Evaluating the Efficacy of Lighting, Marking, and Paint Schemes in Reducing the Incidence of Law Enforcement Vehicle Crashes
  • Establishing a National Criminal Justice Technology Research, Test, and Evaluation Center
  • Applied Technology Research and Development for Criminal Justice Purposes
  • Identifying the Highest-Priority Criminal Justice Technology Needs
  • Applied Technology Research and Development to Optimize Criminal Justice Use of Social Media in the Web 3.0 Environment

Office of Research and Evaluation

  • Evaluating the Effectiveness of State, Local, and Tribal Responses to Violence Committed Against Indian Women Living in Tribal Communities
  • The Impact of Probation/Parole Officer Home Visits on Offender Outcomes
  • Research and Evaluation on Justice Systems: Investigator-Initiated Research and Evaluation on Policing
  • Research and Evaluation on the Impact of Social Media on Policing
  • Research and Evaluation on Violence Against Women: Teen Dating Violence, Sexual Violence, and Intimate Partner Violence
  • Research on Teen Dating Violence in Understudied Populations: Postdoctoral Fellowship

Note

[1] Only proposals that addressed pattern and impression evidence were evaluated through the SRPs. All other proposals submitted under these solicitations were evaluated through the customary peer review process.

Date Modified: May 27, 2014