Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Pages 5-8

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 5...
... also evaluated this technology-selection process in its 1994 and 1995 annual reports (NRC, 1995b, 1996~. In particular, these reports recommended that OST should develop and apply a standardized, rigorous, and independent external peer review process to all of its technology-development programs.
From page 6...
... internal procedures used by OST to identify the need for tamely peer review of projects and programs; · structures, protocols, and procedures for obtaining peer reviews of OST projects and programs, including who decides what will be peer reviewed, what criteria for peer review are used, and when in the R&D process peer review is requested; and · feedback of peer review results into program management and development · ~ c .eclslons. In performing this assessment, the committee was asked to compare OST's practices to generally accepted norms for scientific and technical peer review, including practices for selection of peer reviewers and screening for bias and conflict of interest.
From page 7...
... SEP techniques in Atlanta, Georgia, the Small In-Tank Processing Modules and Small Modular InCan Vitrification projects in Columbia Maryland, and several High Temperature Melter and Characterization projects in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The committee also has reviewed all peer review reports that have been produced under the new program from its initiation in October 1996 through June 1997.

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.