Systems Studies Program Peer Review Meeting Albert L. Opdenaker III DOE Program Manager Holiday Inn Express Germantown, Maryland August 29, 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Summer Internship Program Outline
Advertisements

Report of the Committee of Visitors Energy Frontier Research Centers and Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis Energy Innovation Hub Office of Basic.
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in the Seventh Framework Programme Support actions.
FES International Collaboration Program: Vision and Budget Steve Eckstrand International Program Manager Office of Fusion Energy Sciences U.S. Department.
The Priority of Research and Doctoral School Nino Zhvania Head of the Quality Assurance Office.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT DAY Brown Bag on Merit Advancement Christine Miaskowski, Shari L. Dworkin & Sally Marshall.
Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre April 1, 2010.
An Excellent Proposal is a Good Idea, Well Expressed, With A Clear Indication of Methods for Pursuing the Idea, Evaluating the Findings, and Making Them.
NSF Merit Review Criteria Revision Background. Established Spring 2010 Rationale: – More than 13 years since the last in-depth review and revision of.
Peer Assessment of 5-year Performance ARS National Program 301: Plant, Microbial and Insect Genetic Resources, Genomics and Genetic Improvement Summary.
Bucket 6.  President's Award  Each year, several SME chapters select a member who has contributed more than any other during the previous year to support.
Summary and Closing Remarks Farrokh Najmabadi University of California San Diego Presentation to: ARIES Program Peer Review August 18, 2000 UC San Diego.
EAS 299 Writing research papers
Status of the implementation of the Regional R&D Strategy for Innovation for the Western Balkan Ministry of science education and sports - Croatia.
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Major Research Instrumentation Program November 2007 Major Research Instrumentation EPSCoR PI Meeting November 6-9,
How to Improve your Grant Proposal Assessment, revisions, etc. Thomas S. Buchanan.
American Diploma Project Network Webinar December 19, 2012.
Best Practices In Design Outcomes Of A Survey P. H. King, PhD, PE Joan Walker, PhD Vanderbilt University.
1 Theme-based Research Scheme Briefing Session 12 April 2010.
Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Meeting March 3, 2010 Overview of the DOE Office of Science Graduate Fellowship Program Julie Carruthers, Ph.D.
The Climate Prediction Project Global Climate Information for Regional Adaptation and Decision-Making in the 21 st Century.
Designing and implementing of the NQF Tempus Project N° TEMPUS-2008-SE-SMHES ( )
Work Programme for the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration "Integrating and strengthening the European Research.
Ajaz S. Hussain, Ph.D. Deputy Director Office of Pharmaceutical Science, CDER, FDA ACPS Subcommittee on Manufacturing Science: Identification and Prioritization.
District XXXX Presidents-elect Training Seminar 1 Session 8: Goal Setting.
RESEARCH EDUCATION OUTCOME AND CAPABILITIES Results of groupwork, point 5 on the agenda.
AIAA’s Publications Business Publications New Initiatives Subcommittee Wednesday, 9 January 2008 Rodger Williams.
National Science Foundation 1 Evaluating the EHR Portfolio Judith A. Ramaley Assistant Director Education and Human Resources.
08 October 2015 M. Ammar Mehdi Introduction to Human Resource Management & SSG-16 Actions 4 th Steering Committee on Competence of Human.
Technology Strategy Board Driving Innovation Participation in Framework Programme 7 Octavio Pernas, UK NCP for Health (Industry) 11 th April 2012.
NCAR Scientific and Research Engineering Staff Appointments Process Jeff Stith 2012 Appointments Review Group (ARG) Chair October 5, 2011.
1 Analysing the contributions of fellowships to industrial development November 2010 Johannes Dobinger, UNIDO Evaluation Group.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
“Thematic Priority 3” Draft Evaluation of IP + NoE.
AHRQ 2011 Annual Conference: Insights from the AHRQ Peer Review Process Training Grant Review Perspective Denise G. Tate Ph.D., Professor, Chair HCRT Study.
NSF IGERT proposals Yang Zhao Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Wayne State University.
Learning from Western- Australian secondary and VET system.
The Road to Promotion: Beyond Associate Professor.
The Road to Promotion: Beyond Associate Professor.
1 Faculty Motivation and Policies Steven R. Hall Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Chair of the MIT Faculty.
Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Marvin Frazier Director, Life Sciences Division Office of Biological and Environmental Research April 30, 2004.
NOAA Cooperative Institutes John Cortinas, Ph.D. OAR Cooperative Institute Program, Program Manager NOAA Cooperative Institute Committee, Chairperson.
Awards Subcommittee Report Brett A. Bednarcyk NASA Glenn Research Center 1 Fall Structures TC Meeting November 11, 2012 Savannah, GA.
1 © ACADEMY OF FINLAND Academy of Finland 2012: Research knows no boundaries Tiina Kotti PhD, Programme Manager, Programme Unit.
1Mobile Computing Systems © 2001 Carnegie Mellon University Writing a Successful NSF Proposal November 4, 2003 Website: nsf.gov.
COMPETITIVE AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH Science, research and development European Commission Søren Bøwadt, M&T,I Workshop on Virtual Institutes 28th of Sept.
Inter-American Institute (IAI) Proposal Evaluation Paul E. Filmer National Science Foundation Second IAI Summer Institute, July 2000 University of Miami.
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics PROGRAM.
Promotions on the Physician Scientist/Basic Science Investigator Track Larry L. Swift, Ph.D. Vice Chair for Faculty Affairs Department of Pathology, Microbiology.
Restructured NIH Applications One Year Later:
Elementary School Administration and Management GADS 671 Section 55 and 56.
IFIP TC5 Working Group 5.4 Computer Aided Innovation Objectives: The Working Group will: – Identify the different existing approaches – Share opinions,
Report of the Committee of Visitors of the Division of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE) to the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Review.
Standards of Achievement for Professional Advancement District 2 Career Ladder Training April 29, 2016 Ronda Alexander & Michael Clawson.
NIH R03 Program Review Ning Jackie Zhang, MD, PhD, MPH College of Health and Public Affairs 04/17/2013.
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2016
Impact-Oriented Project Planning
NSDL: A New Tool for Teaching and Learning.
NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi
Feinberg School of Medicine Faculty Promotion and Tenure Program
Strategy Review Sessions September 11 and 12, 2017
NIST SBIR Administrator
UC policy states:  "Superior intellectual attainment, as evidenced both in teaching and in research or other creative achievement, is an indispensable.
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2018
AESS Awards Ad Hoc Committee
Dr. Lani (Chi Chi) Zimmerman, UNMC Dr. Bill Mahoney, IS&T
What is the Fusion Industry Association?
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2017
S-STEM (NSF ) NSF Scholarships for Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics Information Materials 6 Welcome! This is the seventh in a series.
Intellectual Merit & Broader Impact Statements August 2019
Presentation transcript:

Systems Studies Program Peer Review Meeting Albert L. Opdenaker III DOE Program Manager Holiday Inn Express Germantown, Maryland August 29, 2013

A Committee of Visitors (COV) review of FES programs in COV review result: Enabling Technology programs undergo peer review every 3 to 5 years “Committee of Visitors Review of Procedures and Processes Used to Solicit and Fund Research at Universities, National Laboratories, and Industrial Firms”, April 2010, DOE/SC-0126, Scope: Scientific and technical work conducted August 2009-August Evaluate : Quality of that work and whether the team successfully completed the work it proposed to accomplish. Not included: Matters of policy and programmatic strategies subject of other reviews Schedule: Charge Issued July 11, 2013 Panel Meeting August 29, 2013 Individual Reports Due September 27, 2013 Summary Report Issued October 18, 2013 Systems Studies Program Peer Review Meeting Background

Quality of Science and Technology Validity of scientific methods and approaches Effectiveness in using state-of-the-art analytical tools Creativity, innovation, and originality in addressing technical problems Quality and completeness of documentation and reporting Recognition of research accomplishments by peers, scientific communities, and professional societies (e.g., number of papers published, citations, impact factor, and awards) Productivity and Progress Evaluation of the effectiveness of the performed research with regard to advancement of Technology Readiness Levels Sustained achievement in advancing knowledge and in developing new technologies that advance research capabilities and reduce research costs Efficiency and effectiveness of using available research resources, both domestically and internationally Rate of progress toward resolving scientific issues and technical problems Effectiveness of teaming domestically and internationally for information transfer and synergistic problem-solving Systems Studies Program Peer Review Meeting Evaluation Criteria

Relevance and Impact Relevance of research activities to scientific goals for the program element Influence on progress in fusion research and establishment of fusion energy scientific foundations Use of research results in both domestic and international fusion programs Influence on scientific communities and other elements of domestic and international fusion programs Contributions to other scientific and technical fields Publications in peer-reviewed journals Educational benefits, such as effectiveness of attracting and training students to become future fusion scientists and engineers Transfer of knowledge and technology developments to industry Stature and leadership in domestic and international communities Systems Studies Program Peer Review Meeting Evaluation Criteria (Cont.)

Systems Studies Program Peer Review Meeting Scoring Terminology RatingMeaning Excellent/ Outstanding Among the best of R&D programs; truly outstanding; quality and progress is in the top 10% of comparable R&D programs Very good Strong R&D program; quality and progress is in the upper 1/3 of comparable R&D programs; no notable deficiencies Good Sound R&D program; quality and progress is in the middle 1/3 of comparable R&D programs; any notable deficiencies are minor with clear pathways to resolution Marginal Much of R&D program is good, but there are notable deficiencies that cannot be considered minor and may not be easily resolvable; quality and progress is in the bottom 1/3 of comparable R&D programs UnsatisfactoryR&D program has significant deficiencies that are not clearly resolvable