References

Abrams, P. 1991. The predictive ability of peer review of grant proposals: The case of ecology and the U.S. National Science Foundation. Social Studies of Science 21:111-132.

ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). 1997 (January). Manual for Peer Review. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Center for Research and Technology Development.

ASME. 1996a. Review of the Cost of In Situ Air Stripping of VOC Contaminations in Soils (October 9, 1996): Final Report of the Review Panel . American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

ASME. 1996b, unpublished. Peer Review of the Proposals for Salt Stabilization (November 12-13, 1996): Final Report of the Review Panel (draft). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.


Bozeman, B. 1993. Peer review and evaluation of R&D impacts. Chapter 5 in Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice, B. Bozeman and J. Melkers, eds. Boston: Kluwer Publishing.


Chubin, D. 1994. Grants peer review in theory and practice. Evaluation Review 18(1):12-19.

Chubin, D., and E. Hackett. 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

Cole, J., and S. Cole. 1979. Which researcher will get the grant? Nature 279:575-576.

Cole, S. 1991. Consensus and reliability of peer review evaluations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):140-150.

Cole, S., L. Rubin, and J. Cole. 1978. Peer Review in the National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Cooper, R. G. 1993. Winning at New Products. 2nd edition. New York: Addison Wesley Publishing.

Cozzens, S.E. 1987. Expert review in evaluating programs. Science and Public Policy 14(2):64-71.


DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1996. Draft Description of OST Departmental, Program & Project Level Reviews. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

DOE. 1997a. Accelerating Cleanup: Focus on 2006, Discussion Draft. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management.

DOE. 1997b (May). Office of Science and Technology Technical Peer Review Program: Revised Guidance. Version 1.0. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science and Technology.

DOE. 1997c (April). Technology Decision Process Procedure: Working Copy, Revision 7.0. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Energy.


GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 1996. Energy Management: Technology Development Program Taking Action to Address Problems. GAO/RCED-96-184. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.


Koning, R.N. 1990. Peer review. Scientist 4(17):12-14.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 31
--> References Abrams, P. 1991. The predictive ability of peer review of grant proposals: The case of ecology and the U.S. National Science Foundation. Social Studies of Science 21:111-132. ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). 1997 (January). Manual for Peer Review. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Center for Research and Technology Development. ASME. 1996a. Review of the Cost of In Situ Air Stripping of VOC Contaminations in Soils (October 9, 1996): Final Report of the Review Panel . American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME. 1996b, unpublished. Peer Review of the Proposals for Salt Stabilization (November 12-13, 1996): Final Report of the Review Panel (draft). American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Bozeman, B. 1993. Peer review and evaluation of R&D impacts. Chapter 5 in Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice, B. Bozeman and J. Melkers, eds. Boston: Kluwer Publishing. Chubin, D. 1994. Grants peer review in theory and practice. Evaluation Review 18(1):12-19. Chubin, D., and E. Hackett. 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Cole, J., and S. Cole. 1979. Which researcher will get the grant? Nature 279:575-576. Cole, S. 1991. Consensus and reliability of peer review evaluations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):140-150. Cole, S., L. Rubin, and J. Cole. 1978. Peer Review in the National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Cooper, R. G. 1993. Winning at New Products. 2nd edition. New York: Addison Wesley Publishing. Cozzens, S.E. 1987. Expert review in evaluating programs. Science and Public Policy 14(2):64-71. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1996. Draft Description of OST Departmental, Program & Project Level Reviews. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. DOE. 1997a. Accelerating Cleanup: Focus on 2006, Discussion Draft. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. DOE. 1997b (May). Office of Science and Technology Technical Peer Review Program: Revised Guidance. Version 1.0. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science and Technology. DOE. 1997c (April). Technology Decision Process Procedure: Working Copy, Revision 7.0. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Energy. GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 1996. Energy Management: Technology Development Program Taking Action to Address Problems. GAO/RCED-96-184. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office. Koning, R.N. 1990. Peer review. Scientist 4(17):12-14.

OCR for page 31
--> Kostoff, R.N. 1997a. Peer Review: The Appropriate GPRA Metric for Research. Science 277:651-652. Kostoff, R.N. 1997b. Research program peer review: principles, practices, protocols. (online companion paper to Kostoff [1997a], available at the following universal resource locator: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/kostoff/index.html). McCullough, J. 1989. First comprehensive survey of NSF applicants focuses on their concerns about proposal review. Science, Technology and Human Values 14:78-98. Moxham, H., and J. Anderson. 1992. Peer review: A view from the inside. Science and Technology Policy 5(1):7-15. NRC (National Research Council). 1995a. Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1995b. Committee on Environmental Management Technologies Report for the Period Ending December 31, 1994. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1995c. Improving the Environment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1996. Environmental Management Technology-Development Program at the Department of Energy: 1995 Review. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1997. Building an Effective Environmental Management Science Program: Final Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Paladino, J., and P. Longsworth. 1995. Maximizing R&D Investments in the Department of Energy's Environmental Cleanup Program. Technology Transfer (December):96-107. Porter, A., and F. Rossini. 1985. Peer review of interdisciplinary research proposals. Science, Technology and Human Values 10(1):33-38. The Royal Society. 1995. Peer Review: An Assessment of Recent Developments. London: The Royal Society (The U.K. Academy of Sciences). USNRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1988. Peer Review for High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories: Generic Technical Position. By W.D. Altman, J.P. Donnelly, and J.E. Kennedy. NUREG-1297. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.