Peer Review Panel Research Articles

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

The future of societal impact assessment using peer review: pre-evaluation training, consensus building and inter-reviewer reliability

There are strong political reasons underpinning the desire to achieve a high level of inter-reviewer reliability (IRR) within peer review panels. Achieving a high level of IRR is synonymous with an efficient review system, and the wider perception of a fair evaluation process. Therefore, there is an arguable role for a more structured approach to the peer review process during a time when evaluators are effectively novices in practice with the criterion, such as with societal impact. This article explores the consequences of a structured peer review process that aimed to increase inter-reviewer reliability within panels charged with assessing societal impact. Using a series of interviews from evaluators from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework conducted before (pre-evaluation) and then again after the completion of the process (post-evaluation), it explores evaluators’ perceptions about how one tool of a structured evaluation process, pre-evaluation training, influenced their approaches to achieving a consensus within the peer review panel. Building on lessons learnt from studies on achieving inter-reviewer reliability and from consensus building with peer review groups, this article debates the benefits of structured peer review processes in cases when the evaluators are unsure of the criterion (as was the case with the Impact criterion), and therefore the risks of a low IRR are increased. In particular, this article explores how individual approaches to assessing Impact were normalized during group deliberation around Impact and how these relate to evaluators’ perceptions of the advice given during the pre-evaluation training. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

Making melanoma therapy personal: an interview with Dr Keiran Smalley for Melanoma Management.

Dr Smalley earned his PhD in Pharmacology from the University of Cambridge, UK, in 2001. He worked as a post-doctoral fellow in the Oncology Department of University College London, the Institute of Cancer Research, Fulham Road and the Wistar Institute, PA, USA. Currently, Dr Smalley is a Professor in the Departments of Tumor Biology and Cutaneous Oncology at the Moffitt Cancer Center, FL, USA. He is also currently the Donald A Adam Endowed Chair in Melanoma Research and is the Director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancers Center of Excellence. The lab of Dr Smalley focuses upon the development of targeted therapy strategies for melanoma and is currently funded by the NCI, the pharmaceutical industry and a number of philanthropic sources. Dr Smalley's work is highly translational in nature and work from his lab has led to the initiation of a number of clinical trials. To date, Dr Smalley has published over 120 papers in top peer-reviewed journals including Cancer Research, Cancer Discovery, Cancer Cell, New England Journal of Medicine, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Lancet, Gastroenterology and Clinical Cancer Research. He currently sits on the editorial boards of Clinical Cancer Research, Biochemical Pharmacology, Drugs, Melanoma Research and the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology and is the Associate Editor of Pharmacological Research. Dr Smalley is a charter member of the Basic Mechanisms of Cancer Therapeutics Study Section for the NCI/NIH and has served on many other peer review panels for the Department of Defense, the state of Texas and numerous melanoma research foundations. He has also fulfilled advisory roles with the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh and a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr Smalley has been a visiting professor at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil in 2011 and in 2014 received a Science Without Borders Scholarship from the Brazilian Government.

Abstract C37: [Advocate Abstract:] Kidney cancer incidence levels in minority populations

Abstract Action to Cure Kidney Cancer (ACKC) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization founded in 2003 by patients, and their families to advocate for increased federal and private funding for kidney cancer research to identify people at risk, develop an inexpensive and accurate screening test, improved treatment and ultimately find a cure for kidney cancer. To date ACKC has provided close to $400,000 to fund kidney cancer research. Early on we discovered the existence of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP), which was created to augment cancer research funding given that members of the U.S. military suffer from similar or even higher rates of cancer than does the general public. The CDMRP is very different from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) grant process. As pointed out in the summer issue of the AUA Investigator, ?CDMRPs play a unique role in the medical research community, investing in high-reward research grants through a peer-review system ?The initiatives under the CDMRPs are critical to advancing our understanding of a variety of health issues and have a proven track record of contributing to major medical breakthroughs,? The CDMRP is a two tiered system with patient advocates as voting members in addition to the scientific members in each of the two tiers. In the Programmatic Panel they participate in developing the vision for the disease research in the Peer Review Panel they evaluate and grade the proposals. After the proposals are graded the Programmatic Panel selects the proposals to be funded. The patient advocates are respected members of the CDMRP panels because they provide the face to the disease and can identify from their experience where the disease research needs to focus. In 2004, ACKC initiated a campaign calling for inclusion of kidney cancer as a separate line item in the CDMRP. We obtained bi-partisan Senate and House sponsorship of a Dear Colleague letter, which was sent to the Defense Appropriation subcommittees asking for this funding. In 2006 kidney cancer was added as a topic area to the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Group (PRMRG) and was moved to the Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Group (PRCRP) in 2009. Kidney cancer in the PRMRG/PRCRG had to compete with other diseases/cancers for research grants. From 2006 through 2015 kidney cancer researchers received a total of $10 million in research grants. ACKC was and still is the only not-for-profit organization to advocate for a kidney cancer CDMRP line item. In addition to our ?March on Washington? in the spring of each year we have given briefings to Congressional health staffers about kidney cancer and the need to fund research as it has been significantly underfunded compared with other cancers. This year we attained a breakthrough in that the House passed the FY2017 Defense Appropriations bill, which includes $10 million targeted for kidney cancer research. We are anxiously awaiting the passing of the 2017 Defense Appropriations bill because we anticipate kidney cancer having its own annual budget line. We await the Senate which has not yet passed a 2017 Defense Appropriations bill. The American Urological Association (AUA) is supporting our efforts and we are very hopeful that kidney cancer will receive its own research budget line. If we are successful, a new and significant avenue for kidney cancer research will open up which would be very exciting news for the members of the AUA. At present ACKC participates with One Voice Against Cancer (OVAC) advocating for National Institute of Health (NIH) funding increases to $33 billion and proportional increases for the NCI. In addition we have and continue to advocate to The NCI for additional Special Programs of Research Excellence (SPOREs). ACKC is a member and a founding partner of the International Kidney Cancer Coalition (IKCC). We attend and selectively report on our website on The American Association of Cancer Research (AACR), The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the Brigham & Women?s Hospital/Dana Farber/Renal Carcinoma meetings. The ACKC website (www.ackc.org) emphasizes not only the latest news in kidney cancer research, but also provides Four Patient Guides for patients and caregivers. All four guides were updated in April 2016: - Guide 1: Understanding My Disease is written for the newly diagnosed patient - Guide 2: Managing My Cancer is about the care and treatment of kidney cancer patients with metastatic disease. - Guide 3: Caring for My Caregiver is for the people in your life who are helping you. - Guide 4: When Treatment Ends is designed for both patients and their loved ones. Citation Format: Bryan Lewis. [Advocate Abstract:] Kidney cancer incidence levels in minority populations. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Ninth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2016 Sep 25-28; Fort Lauderdale, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(2 Suppl):Abstract nr C37.

‘Your comments are meaner than your score’: score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review

In scientific grant peer review, groups of expert scientists meet to engage in the collaborative decision-making task of evaluating and scoring grant applications. Prior research on grant peer review has established that inter-reviewer reliability is typically poor. In the current study, experienced reviewers for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were recruited to participate in one of four constructed peer review panel meetings. Each panel discussed and scored the same pool of recently reviewed NIH grant applications. We examined the degree of intra-panel variability in panels' scores of the applications before versus after collaborative discussion, and the degree of inter-panel variability. We also analyzed videotapes of reviewers' interactions for instances of one particular form of discourse-Score Calibration Talk-as one factor influencing the variability we observe. Results suggest that although reviewers within a single panel agree more following collaborative discussion, different panels agree less after discussion, and Score Calibration Talk plays a pivotal role in scoring variability during peer review. We discuss implications of this variability for the scientific peer review process.

Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology

Journal of PeriodontologyVolume 87, Issue 12 p. 1369-1370 News and View Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology First published: 01 December 2016 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.1612001Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Supporting Information Filename Description jper1369-sup-0001.pdfPDF document, 421.4 KB Additional Reviewers Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. Volume87, Issue12December 2016Pages 1369-1370 RelatedInformation

Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology

Journal of PeriodontologyVolume 87, Issue 6 p. 617-618 News and View Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology First published: 01 June 2016 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.166001Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Supporting Information Filename Description jper0617-sup-0001.pdfPDF document, 425.8 KB Additional Reviewers Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. Volume87, Issue6June 2016Pages 617-618 RelatedInformation

NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity.

Peer review is widely used to assess grant applications so that the highest ranked applications can be funded. A number of studies have questioned the ability of peer review panels to predict the productivity of applications, but a recent analysis of grants funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US found that the percentile scores awarded by peer review panels correlated with productivity as measured by citations of grant-supported publications. Here, based on a re-analysis of these data for the 102,740 funded grants with percentile scores of 20 or better, we report that these percentile scores are a poor discriminator of productivity. This underscores the limitations of peer review as a means of assessing grant applications in an era when typical success rates are often as low as about 10%.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13323.001

The Funding Gap between Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Traditionally White Institutions Needs to be Addressed* <em>(Editor’s Commentary)</em>

In 2014, four traditionally White institutions (TWIs) received more revenue from grants and contracts than all four-year historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) combined (See Tables 1 and 2). In total, 89 four-year HBCUs collectively received $1.2 billion for grants and contracts from the federal, state and local governments, as well as private foundations. By comparison, John Hopkins University received $1.6 billion alone.On average, each HBCU receives $11 million from the federal government, $1.3 million from state governments, and a little more than $504,000 from local governments and private foundations, for a total average of $12.8 million for grants and contracts annually. The total annual average for all institutions of higher education is $27.7 million. In perspective, the annual revenue total for grants and contracts for the average TWI, would rank in the top-10 among HBCUs.CREATING A CASTE SYSTEM IN HIGHER EDUCATIONGrants and contracts are essential for an institution's long-term viability; reducing tuition dependence and providing important funding for research, services, and programs. Funding disparities create a caste system in higher education, whereby students at better-funded institutions benefit from enhanced facilities, equipment, and opportunities to earn income while studying. While gaps in funding between HBCUs and TWIs can be attributed to differences in institutional capacity, it also stems from selection biases among funding agencies.Morehouse School of Medicine ($85 million) and Meharry Medical College ($79 million) generated more revenue through grants and contracts than any other HBCUs in 2014. However, that year the average revenue generated from grants and contracts among all 47 Carnegieclassified medical colleges in the United States was $165 million.Table 1 lists the top-10 four-year HBCUs for generating revenue through grants and contracts. All institutions listed generated more than $25 million for grants and contracts in 2014. HBCUs vary widely in the amount of funding received, with 16 HBCUs receiving less than $3 million in total revenue from grants and contracts in 2014.WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONEHBCUs that are more successful at competing for grants and contracts typically have more robust offices of grants and sponsored programs, better incentives for faculty and staff who write grant proposals, a clear statement of capability, and campus leaders that actively promote their university's research and programs to potential funders. However, the best efforts of HBCUs are often thwarted by competing TWIs that reinvest millions of dollars in funding into strategies specifically aimed at acquiring additional funding.To become more competitive, HBCUs need to invest in government affairs, research and sponsored programs, and communications. In addition, networking with program officers, joining peer-review panels, and publishing existing research and programs give HBCUs better access to funding opportunities. Technical assistance from external stakeholders, such as The National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO; www. …

Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology.

Journal of PeriodontologyVolume 86, Issue 12 p. 1301-1302 News and View Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology First published: 01 December 2015 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2015.1512001Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Supporting Information Filename Description jper1301-sup-0001.pdfPDF document, 421.4 KB Additional Reviewers Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. Volume86, Issue12December 2015Pages 1301-1302 RelatedInformation

Top-Rated LABS Abstracts 2014-Intro

comprehensive database of thesis abstracts (Ph.D., Masters and MFA) on topics at the intersections between art, science and technology. This Englishlanguage database is hosted by Pomona College (Claremont, CA). In addition to being published in the database, a selection of abstracts chosen by a peer review panel for their special relevance will be published annually in Leonardo journal and on the Leonardo OnLine website. The deadline for receipt of abstracts for review by the LABS peer review panel is 30 June each year. Abstract rankings are announced in the autumn. Authors of abstracts most highly ranked by the panel are invited to submit an article for publication consideration in Leonardo. The aim of LABS is not to duplicate existing thesis databases but rather to give visibility to interdisciplinary work, which is often hard to retrieve from existing databases. The LABS Peer Review Panel for 2014–2015 consists of Yiannis Colakides, Tom Leeser, Emmanuel Mahe, Soraya Murray, Timothy Murray, Andrea Polli, Martin Reiser, Charissa N. Terranova and Iannis Zannos. To submit a thesis abstract or browse ones currently published in the English-language database, visit: .

A retrospective analysis of the effect of discussion in teleconference and face-to-face scientific peer-review panels

ObjectiveWith the use of teleconferencing for grant peer-review panels increasing, further studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of the teleconference setting compared to the traditional onsite/face-to-face setting. The objective...

The white cube in the black box: assessing artistic research quality in multidisciplinary academic panels

Despite its imperfections, academic peer review has been accepted as a satisfactory process by which assessment panels comprised of different disciplinary representatives arrive at agreement through a system of shared rules and language that respects disciplinary plurality. Artistic researchers, whose output is required to meet both scholarly research criteria and the aesthetic standards expected by their peers in the art world, express concern that university peer review processes disadvantage their disciplines due to differences between artistic research and more science-informed research expectations. As research created with the artistic ‘white cube’ in mind intersects with this ‘black box’ of scholarly peer review, do the shared protocols adopted by peer-review panels extend to research expressed not in scholarly text but in artistic artefact? Are there features inherent in artistic research that impinge upon equitable consideration within these settings? This paper draws upon face-to-face interviews with visual and performing artists in three Australian universities to explore how these researchers experience university peer review. It contributes a distinctive disciplinary perspective to understanding university assessment and evaluation processes for the benefit of both academic staff and postgraduate students.

UK Doubles Its “World-Leading” Research in Life Sciences and Medicine in Six Years: Testing the Claim?

BackgroundThe UK, like some other countries, carries out a periodic review of research quality in universities and the most recent Research Excellence Framework (REF) reported a doubling (103% increase) in its “world leading” or so-called “4*” research outputs in the areas of life sciences and medicine between 2008 and 2014. This is a remarkable improvement in six years and if validated internationally could have profound implications for health sciences.MethodsWe compared the reported changes in 4* quality to bibliometric measures of quality for the 56,639 articles submitted to the RAE 2008 and the 50,044 articles submitted to the REF 2014 to Panel A, which assesses the life sciences, including medicine.FindingsUK research submitted to the RAE and REF was of better quality than worldwide research on average. While we found evidence for some increase in the quality of top UK research articles, a 10-25% increase in the top 10%ile papers, depending upon the metrics used, we could not find evidence to support a 103% increase in quality. Instead we found that as compared to the RAE, the REF results implied a lower citation %ile threshold for declaring a 4*.InterpretationThere is a wide discrepancy between bibliometric indices and peer-review panel judgements between the RAE 2008 and REF 2014. It is possible that the changes in the funding regime between 2008 and 2014 that significantly increased the financial premium for 4* articles may have influenced research quality evaluation. For the advancement of science and health, evaluation of research quality requires consistency and validity – the discrepancy noted here calls for a closer examination of mass peer-review methods like the REF.

Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology.

Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology.

Research funding. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?

This paper examines the success of peer-review panels in predicting the future quality of proposed research. We construct new data to track publication, citation, and patenting outcomes associated with more than 130,000 research project (R01) grants funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health from 1980 to 2008. We find that better peer-review scores are consistently associated with better research outcomes and that this relationship persists even when we include detailed controls for an investigator's publication history, grant history, institutional affiliations, career stage, and degree types. A one-standard deviation worse peer-review score among awarded grants is associated with 15% fewer citations, 7% fewer publications, 19% fewer high-impact publications, and 14% fewer follow-on patents.

Welcome to the Journal of Daylighting

I am delighted to welcome you to a newly launched Solarlits electronic journal: the Journal of Daylighting (JD). As the Editor-in-Chief of JD it is a great pleasure to introduce the inaugural issue of this new, open-access, bi-annual journal to readers, researchers, future authors, and colleagues. The decision by SolarLits to launch this new journal is very timely. Because the growth of lighting demand is increasing due to rising average illuminance levels in buildings, more attention has been paid to introduce daylighting in buildings, which will sustainably reduce the overall energy consumption in buildings. JD will serve as a new international platform for researchers to share advances in daylighting. As an international, peer-reviewed research journal it will exclusively cover the vibrant and diverse field of daylighting technologies and applications. JD will serve as an interdisciplinary forum for the scientific and research community active in daylighting and its applications. Topics will include, but not limited to: daylighting and hybrid lighting systems, lighting and daylighting simulation, lighting designs, lighting metrology and light quality, lighting control, building physics lighting, building energy modeling, energy efficient buildings, zeroenergy buildings, indoor environment quality, sustainable solar energy systems, application of solar energy sources in buildings, building-integrated photovoltaics, and solar thermal and concentrator technology. I will work with the Associate Editors, the Editorial Board, and the scientific and engineering research community to make JD a primary journal for the dissemination of breakthrough results, discussion of key challenges, and topics in daylighting. JD will publish full-length research articles, review articles, book reviews, and short communications. With the growing need of energy generation by solar applications and energy-saving in buildings, the new journal hopes to spark further research and development in this promising and dynamic field. It is an honor that so many distinguished scientists have been willing to support this initiative, and have joined the board as Associate Editors or as members of the Editorial Board. I also welcome the support from the many reviewers that have agreed to lend their expertise to the new journal. The success of this journal will be largely determined by timeto-publication and impact. A paper is acceptable for publication in JD only when, in addition to being correct technically, it also adds a new and important result to the field. To serve authors efficiently and quickly, all manuscripts submitted to JD will undergo editorial board review prior to entering the peer-review system. This allows manuscripts not appropriate for the journal to be returned quickly to authors so that their time is not wasted and that the peer-review system is not needlessly burdened. The papers published in this first issue are mainly contributed by Editors and the Editorial Board. Papers describe importance of daylighting and represent the intended scope of the journal. The inaugural issue consists of an impressive and diverse set of papers. There are six research articles in this issue. On behalf of the editorial board of JD, we are not only prepared to serve you better, but also strongly encourage you to be part of our publishing family by contributing your cutting edge and novel ideas periodically. I sincerely hope that the new Journal of Daylighting will be adopted by readers and authors, and that it will be able to make an important contribution to the development of daylighting community and the scientific achievements in this field. It is our earnest hope that JD will become your number one choice for rapid, peer-reviewed publication of your highest-quality research in daylighting. Once again, I would like to thank the distinguished Associate Editors, the members of the Editorial Board, and our panel of peer reviewers for their excellent advice, suggestions and contributions during the birth of this first issue. I wish to thank current and future authors and readers for their support, and wish Journal of Daylighting all success!

Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology.

Journal of PeriodontologyVolume 85, Issue 12 p. 1646-1647 News and Views Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology First published: 01 December 2014 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2014.1412001Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume85, Issue12December 2014Pages 1646-1647 RelatedInformation

Development of a diabetes mellitus nutritional management manual for South African healthcare professionals

Background: The objective was to develop a standardised education manual for healthcare professionals in South Africa on the nutritional management of diabetes mellitus.Method: The manual was developed using seven steps: needs assessment and problem definition, a literature search, the first draft of the manual, peer review, the second draft of the manual, expert panel evaluation and the final manual.Results: Following the literature search, the first draft of the manual was developed and sent for peer review and language editing. Recommended changes were made and the second draft was developed and sent to 77 dietitians, of whom the majority were satisfied with the content, which led to the final manual.Conclusion: A diabetes mellitus nutritional management manual for healthcare professionals in South Africa was developed using a systematic approach using peer review and expert panels. The next step will be to evaluate its impact on the knowledge of healthcare professionals.

Science Enhancements by the MAVEN Participating Scientists

NASA implemented a Participating Scientist Program and released a solicitation for the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN mission (MAVEN) proposals on February 14, 2013. After a NASA peer review panel evaluated the proposals, NASA Headquarters selected nine on June 12, 2013. The program’s intent is to enhance the science return from the mission by including new investigations that broaden and/or complement the baseline investigations, while still addressing key science goals. The selections cover a broad range of science investigations. Included are: a patching of a 3D exosphere model to an improved global ionosphere-thermosphere model to study the generation of the exosphere and calculate the escape rates; the addition of a focused study of upper atmosphere variability and waves; improvement of a multi-fluid magnetohydrodynamic model that will be adjusted according to MAVEN observations to enhance the understanding of the solar-wind plasma interaction; a global study of the state of the ionosphere; folding MAVEN measurements into the Mars International Reference Ionosphere under development; quantification of atmospheric loss by pick-up using ion cyclotron wave observations; the reconciliation of remote and in situ observations of the upper atmosphere; the application of precise orbit determination of the spacecraft to measure upper atmospheric density and in conjunction with other Mars missions improve the static gravity field model of Mars; and an integrated ion/neutral study of ionospheric flows and resultant heavy ion escape. Descriptions of each of these investigations are given showing how each adds to and fits seamlessly into MAVEN mission science design.