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 94
--> 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. American Institute of Physics. 1997. Sensenbrenner Chides Science Agencies. The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News 103 (August 18). ASME. 1997. Assessment of technologies supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science and Technology: Results of the Peer Review for Fiscal Year 1997. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Center for Research and Technology Development. ASME. 1998. Manual for Peer Review. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Center for Research and Technology Development. 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, S. 1991. Consensus and reliability of peer review evaluations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):140–150. Committee for Economic Development. 1998. America's Basic Research: Prosperity Through Discovery. New York. Committee for Economic Development. Conway, R.A., W.H. Patrick, Jr., and C.H. Ward. 1996. GPRA Review of the Environmental Laboratory of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss.
OCR for page 95
--> Conway, R.A., K.L. Dickson, and C.H. Ward. 1997. GPRA Review of the Environmental Laboratory of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways Experiment Station . Vicksburg, Miss. 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. DOD (U.S. Department of Defense), Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, Science Advisory Board. 1998. Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 1997. Arlington, Va. 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. 1997. Technology Decision Process Procedure: Working Copy, Revision 7.0. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. DOE. 1998a. Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure, Draft. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. DOE. 1998b. Implementation Guidance for the Office of Science and Technology Technical Peer Review Process. Version 1.0. Chicago: U.S. Department of Energy, Center for Risk Excellence. 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. Institute of Regulatory Science (RSI). 1998. Handbook of Peer Review. Institute of Regulatory Science, Columbia, MD. Koning, R.N. 1990. Peer review. Scientist 4(17):12–14. 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 (on-line companion paper to Kostoff [1997a], available at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/kostoff/index.html). 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.
OCR for page 96
--> NRC. 1996. Environmental Management Technology-Development Program at the Department of Energy: 1995 Review. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1997a. Building an Effective Environmental Management Science Program: Final Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1997b. Peer Review in Department of Energy-Office of Science and Technology: Interim Report. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press (available at http://www.nap.edu/readingroom). NSF (National Science Foundation). 1995. Grant Policy Manual. NSF 95-26. Arlington, Va.:National Science Foundation. NSF. 1997. Grant Proposal Guide. NSF 98-2. Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1991. Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade. OTA-SET-490. Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment. 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. Royal Society. 1995. Peer Review: An Assessment of Recent Developments. London: The Royal Society. 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.
Representative terms from entire chapter: