Peer Review in Environmental Technology Development Programs (1998) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Elements of a Credible Peer Review Program
2 Elements of a Credible Peer Review Program
Pages 27-37
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 27... ...
The processes described in this chapter relate not only to OST's particular peer review program, but also to other peer review programs designed to evaluate the technical merit of technology development activities. DEFINITION OF PEER REVIEW Peer review is used throughout the scientific and engineering communities to evaluate the technical merit of research proposals, projects, and programs.
|
From page 28... ...
A peer review is an in-depth critique of assumptions, calculations, extrapolations, alternate interpretations, methodology, and acceptance criteria employed, and of conclusions drawn in the original work. Peer reviews confirm the adequacy of the work.
|
From page 29... ...
The 1995 NRC CEMT report recommended development and implementation of such a peer review program for the OST technology development program for just this reason (NRC, 1996~.
|
From page 30... ...
. In addition, peer reviews that are conducted publicly, using known reviewers and following an established process that provides immediate feedback in the reviewers' own words, can enhance credibility by increasing confidence in the review process (N1IC, 1997b; Royal Society, 1995~.
|
From page 31... ...
use of peer review results in decision making. In order for a peer review process to be credible and effective as a whole, each of these steps must be performed following well-def~ed procedures that are understood and accepted by everyone involved with the peer review process.
|
From page 32... ...
Reviewers and presenters should be informed of the objectives and review criteria well in advance of the review. For project reviews, the objectives and utility of peer review vary according to the stage of the technology development, adoption, and implementation processes.
|
From page 33... ...
. However, in cases where program managers are experts in the subject matter of the peer review and are not involved in the projects themselves (e.g., at NSF or NIH)
|
From page 34... ...
Planning and Conducting the Review For a peer review to be objective and effective, peer reviewers should receive written documentation that describes the project and its significance (i.e., why the project is being conducted and what it proposes to contribute) and a focused charge that describes the purpose of the peer review and Me review criteria.
|
From page 35... ...
If the PI does not disclose proprietary information, the project will receive a poor review because some technical bases for the evaluation will be missing. To avoid such situations, an investigator's agreement to disclose information critical to a meaningful peer review (under appropriate confidentiality agreements)
|
From page 36... ...
This same lack of communication also can limit the effectiveness of anonymous peer reviews, however, because it severely limits the ability of reviewers to clarify questions that arise during the evaluation of written documentation. Many peer reviews of programs and projects in progress are conducted using reviewers who are known to the proposers and other interested parties, and include open question-and-answer sessions, or "open reviews" (e.g., see Boxes 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7~.
|
From page 37... ...
ELEMENTS OF A CREDIBLE PEER REVIEWPROGRAM 37 to evaluate how well the peer review program achieves its objectives (see "Metrics," Chapter 7~.
|
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.