LEADER 04954nam  2200637 a 450 
001 9910778769903321
005 20230124180918.0
010   $a1-280-24690-1
010   $a9786610246908
010   $a0-309-58632-1
010   $a0-585-14312-9
035   $a(CKB)110986584751400
035   $a(EBL)3376093
035   $a(SSID)ssj0000195613
035   $a(PQKBManifestationID)11179003
035   $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000195613
035   $a(PQKBWorkID)10131480
035   $a(PQKB)11505675
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3376093
035   $a(Au-PeEL)EBL3376093
035   $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10055087
035   $a(CaONFJC)MIL24690
035   $a(OCoLC)923261099
035   $a(EXLCZ)99110986584751400
100   $a19940318d1994      uy             0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aurcn|||||||||
181   $ctxt$2rdacontent
182   $cc$2rdamedia
183   $acr$2rdacarrier
200 00$aMajor award decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation$b[electronic resource] /$fPanel on NSF Decisionmaking for Major Awards, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
210   $aWashington, D.C. $cNational Academy Press$d1994
215   $a1 online resource (xii, 160 pages)
300   $a"National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine."
300   $a"B-274"--T.p. verso.
311   $a0-309-05029-4 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 156-160).
327   $a""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""
327   $a""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""
327   $a""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""
327   $a""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""
327   $a""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""
327   $a""Recommendation 7: Reorienting the NSB Workload""
606   $aScience$xAwards$zUnited States
606   $aResearch grants$zUnited States
615  0$aScience$xAwards
615  0$aResearch grants
676   $a507.9
712 02$aCommittee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (U.S.).$bPanel on NSF Decisionmaking for Major Awards.
801  0$bMiAaPQ
801  1$bMiAaPQ
801  2$bMiAaPQ
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910778769903321
996   $aMajor award decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation$93772430
997   $aUNINA