| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNISOBE600200068470 |
|
|
Autore |
Canseliet, Eugéne |
|
|
Titolo |
L' alchimia / Eugéne Canseliet ; trad Paolo Lucarelli |
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910971020203321 |
|
|
Titolo |
Major award decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation / / Panel on NSF Decisionmaking for Major Awards, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Washington, D.C., : National Academy Press, 1994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
9786610246908 |
9781280246906 |
1280246901 |
9780309586320 |
0309586321 |
9780585143125 |
0585143129 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edizione |
[1st ed.] |
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (xii, 160 pages) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Science - Awards - United States |
Research grants - United States |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
"National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references (p. 156-160). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
""MAJOR AWARD DECISION MAKING AT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION""; ""Copyright""; ""Preface""; ""Contents""; ""Executive Summary""; ""BACKGROUND""; ""FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS""; ""Clear Rules of the Game""; ""Primacy of Technical Merit""; ""Appropriate Roles of Peer Reviewers and Staff""; ""Public Documentation of Decision making""; ""More Stringent Setting of Priorities""; ""RECOMMENDATIONS""; ""Recommendation 1: Justification for Major Project Awards""; ""Recommendation 2: Involvement and Support of the Research Community in Planning"" |
""Recommendation 3: Primacy of Technical Merit Criteria""""Recommendation 4: Human Resource Development and Equal Opportunity as a Criterion""; ""Recommendation 5: Cost Sharing as a Criterion""; ""Recommendation 6: A Two-Phase Merit Review Process""; ""Recommendation 7: Reorienting the NSB Workload""; ""Recommendation 8: Planning the Review Process and Criteria""; ""Recommendation 9: More and Better Public Documentation of Award Decisions""; ""Recommendation 10: More Recompetitions""; ""1 Major Awards at NSF ""; ""OVERVIEW OF MAJOR AWARDS""; ""MAJOR AWARDS AND MERIT REVIEW"" |
""MAJOR AWARDS AND THE NSB""""NSF ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING FOR MERIT REVIEW""; ""OVERALL CONCLUSIONS""; ""Clear Rules of the Game""; ""Primacy of Technical Merit""; ""Appropriate Roles of Peer Reviewers and Staff""; ""Public Documentation of Decision making""; ""More Stringent Setting of Priorities""; ""2 Planning Major Projects ""; ""BACKGROUND: PROJECT PLANNING AND BUDGETING AT NSF""; ""Long-Range Planning at NSF""; ""Annual Budget Process""; ""MAJOR PROJECT PLANNING AND BUDGETING""; ""Capital Facilities Planning""; ""FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLANNING AND BUDGETING""; ""Findings"" |
""Recommendations""""Recommendation 1: Justification for Major Project Awards""; ""Recommendation 2: Involvement and Support of the Research Community in Planning""; ""3 Awarding Major Projects: Criteria and Review Procedures ""; ""BACKGROUND: THE MERIT REVIEW PROCESS AT NSF""; ""Current Review Criteria""; ""Review and Selection Criteria for Major Project Awards""; ""Findings and Recommendations on Criteria""; ""Recommendation 3: Primacy of Technical Merit Criteria""; ""Recommendation 4: Human Resource Development and Equal Opportunity as a Criterion"" |
""Recommendation 5: Cost Sharing as a Criterion""""NSF PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING PROPOSALS""; ""Proposal Review Process""; ""Peer Review Modes""; ""Selection of Reviewers""; ""Policies and Procedures for Dealing with Bias and Conflict of Interest""; ""Award Decision making""; ""Findings and Recommendations on Review Procedures""; ""Recommendation 6: A Two-Phase Merit Review Process""; ""4 Awarding Major Projects: NSB Role, Review Process Design, and Decision Documentation ""; ""NSB ROLE AND PROCEDURES""; ""Findings and Recommendations on the NSB Role"" |
""Recommendation 7: Reorienting the NSB Workload"" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
As part of its mission to foster high-quality scientific and engineering research, the National Science Foundation (NSF) plans, grants, and administers major awards to universities and other research institutions for national research facilities, multidisciplinary research centers, and other large-scale research projects. Although few in number, less than 100, such projects account for about 30 percent of NSF's annual research budget. This book provides a useful overview of how such |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
projects are planned, reviews proposals for merit, and evaluates ongoing projects for renewal awards. The panel makes a series of recommendations for strengthening major award decisionmaking. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |