Skip to main content

Peer Review in Environmental Technology Development Programs (1998) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

3 Uses of Peer Review
Pages 38-52

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 38...
... Peer review also can be used to evaluate the technical merit of individual projects, or groups of projects, at various stages of development (as is done within OST)
Read the entire page →
From page 39...
... PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS Peer review is the most common method for evaluating the technical merit of proposed research and development projects. There are a number of well-known models for such reviews, including those of NSF and NIH (see Kostoff, 1997b; NSF, 1997; and OTA, 1991 for detailed descriptions of these, and other approaches for the review of research proposals)
Read the entire page →
From page 41...
... OST's current peer review process fits this review type. Another example of this type of review is summarized in Box 3.4.
Read the entire page →
From page 42...
... These nontechnical issues should not be confused with appropriate criteria for peer reviews, however, because they could sidetrack reviewers into issues that are beyond their expertise or are difficult to resolve within the time constraints of a two- to three-day review. Program managers can incorporate such input into their decision-making process, however, in a variety of ways, including reviews (such as commercial viability reviews or "relevance reviews")
Read the entire page →
From page 43...
... The decision to continue to support a project at this stage (e.g., Gate 4 of OST's TIDM; see Chapter 4 and Appendix A) also would consider nontechnical aspects, such as regulatory performance standards and timetables, public acceptability, and DOE needs.
Read the entire page →
From page 46...
... A program manager could receive input from experts in these areas, and such input could take the form of separate reviews conducted in parallel or separate from peer reviews on technical matters. PROGRAM BALANCE EVALUATIONS If a fully assessed set of needs is available, management might want to obtain an independent assessment of program balance, that is, whether the technology development program adequately addresses those needs, given the resources available.
Read the entire page →
From page 47...
... If one purpose of such an evaluations were to uncover duplication or potential synergies with projects in other parts of DOE, it might be advisable to have some panelists who are familiar with all relevant DOE programs, perhaps DOE employees, or to have such persons present at the review session to advise panel members. The committee cautions that extreme care should be used in appointing DOE employees as panelists because of the potential for conflicts of interest (see Chapter 5~.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • technical merit
  • peer reviewers
  • nontechnical factors
  • research proposals
  • public acceptability

  • project maturity
  • review programs
  • reviews conducted
  • test data
  • business innovation

  • innovation research
  • engineering development
  • review session
  • mail reviews
  • particular site

  • review program
  • program balance
  • review type
  • various stages
  • nontechnical issues

  • consider nontechnical
  • committee discusses
  • fundamental drivers
  • own peer
  • experts knowledgeable

  • uncover duplication
  • doe employees
  • sidetrack reviewers
  • relevant doe
  • mail review


    • 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.