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.

Front Matter (R1-R12)

Executive Summary (1-20)

1 Introduction (21-26)

2 Elements of a Credible Peer Review Program (27-37)

3 Uses of Peer Review (38-52)

4 OST's Peer Review Program (53-66)

5 Analysis of OST's Peer Review Program (67-81)

6 “Triage” Approach for Reducing Project Backlogs (82-84)

7 Improving the Effectiveness of OST's Peer Review Program (85-93)

References (94-96)

Appendix A Description of OST's Technology Investment Decision Model (97-102)

Appendix B Description of OST's Review Program (103-108)

Appendix C Biographical Sketches (109-112)

Appendix D Acronyms (113-114)