Peer Review in the Department of Energy-Office of Science and Technology Interim Report (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
Pages 13-26
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 13... ...
In order for a peer review process to be credible and effective as a whole, each of these steps must be performed following well-defined procedures that are understood and accepted by everyone involved with the peer review program. Project Selection ~ , Definition of Review Objectives and Criteria Selection of Peer Review Panel platen ing/Conducting Peer Review ~ , Use of Results in Decision Making FIGURE ~ Flow-chart showing major steps of a peer review process.
|
From page 14... ...
14 Peer Review in the DOE-OST: Interim Report 7Focus areas were created by EM to assist in management and coordination of its technology development activities. The four focus areas, which are based on EM's major problem areas, are mixed waste characterization, treatment, and disposal; radioactive tank waste; subsurface contamination (formerly two focus areas: contaminant plume containment and landfill stabilization)
|
From page 15... ...
For the reader's reference, boxes 1 through 9 introduce relevant aspects of OST's current peer review program and the OST organization, and are based on OST's descriptions of the program. A complete description of OST's peer review program can be found in Appendix A, from which the text of most of the boxes is extracted.
|
From page 16... ...
16 Peer Review in the DOE-OST: Interim Report TABLE 1 Status of Peer Reviewed Technologies in the Stage-Gate Mode!
|
From page 17... ...
Peer Review Process 17
|
From page 18... ...
~A ~1 1 ~ ~ Peer review of technologies beyond Gate 4 is In addition, the committee strongly encourages OST to focus a part of its peer review efforts earlier In the technology-development process. As previously discussed in the section entitled Benefits of Peer Review, peer review of technologies during the early stages of development maximizes the return on R&D expenditures.
|
From page 19... ...
has the appropriate expertise required to address these issues. Because peer reviews are by definition technical in nature, both the objectives of the review and review criteria should focus on technical considerations.
|
From page 20... ...
The committee encourages OST to continue its practice of developing a small number of technology-specific review criteria, provided these criteria are technical in nature and do not obscure or preempt the principal goal of determining technical merit. Specific review criteria allow individual peer review panels to focus their review efforts on issues that are especially relevant to a particular technology or a specific stage of technology development, or that are of particular interest to OST.
|
From page 21... ...
The committee finds that the criteria used to select reviewers in the OST peer review program are adequate to ensure the technical credibility of the peer review panel. In order to ensure the independence of the peer reviewers, however, the committee recommends that OST also include a criterion that explicitly excludes EM staff and contractors with real or potential conflicts of interest, including aH OST staff and contractors, from consideration as peer reviewers.
|
From page 22... ...
encourages OST to revise its general review criteria to focus on technical issues. If OST continues to include nontechnical review criteria such as public acceptance and regulatory acceptability, however, expertise in these areas also must be included on peer review panels.
|
From page 23... ...
The committee encourages OST to refine its list of required materials to include only technical documents relevant to the review criteria established for the peer review. During some of the technology presentations at OST peer reviews, members of this committee have observed several problematic situations that Impeded a thorough review, such as the withholding of confidential technical information from peer reviewers, which prevented panelists from judging the technical merit of a project, and lack of facilitation by the chair.
|
From page 24... ...
More recent peer review reports have more clearly explained the rationale for the peer review panel's conclusions and recommendations, however. Two other improvements in recent peer review reports have been the addition of a section that summarizes the review criteria and the inclusion of short biographical sketches of the peer reviewers.
|
From page 25... ...
To be effective, this plan also must assure that peer reviews are conducted early enough in the budget cycle to allow peer review results to be used as an input into meaningful funding decisions. In developing such a plan, OST should consider expanding its practice of consolidating reviews of related projects into a single review or several overlapping reviews in order to increase the number of projects that can be reviewed in the peer review program.
|
From page 26... ...
the percentage of reviewed projects that were not funded in the next gate review decision, (3) the percentage of adequate DOE written responses to peer reviews that were received within the required 30 days, and (41 the degree of follow un on recommendations of the Deer review panels.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.