Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Peer Review”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1991

Portable Common Execution Environment (PCEE) project review: Peer review

The purpose of the review was to conduct an independent, in-depth analysis of the PCEE project and to provide the results of said review. The review team was tasked with evaluating the potential contribution of the PCEE project to the improvement of the life cycle support of mission and safety critical (MASC) computing components for large, complex, non-stop, distributed systems similar to those planned for such NASA programs as the space station, lunar outpost, and manned missions to Mars. Some conclusions of the review team are as follow: The PCEE project was given high marks for its breath of vision on the overall problem with MASC software; Correlated with the sweeping vision, the Review Team is very skeptical that any research project can successfully attack such a broad range of problems; and several recommendations are made such as to identify the components of the broad solution envisioned, prioritizing them with respect to their impact and the likely ability of the PCEE or others to attack them successfully, and to rewrite its Concept Document differentiating the problem description, objectives, approach, and results so that the project vision becomes assessible to others.

Locke, C. Douglass↗
DOE OSTI2026

Thank You to Our Peer Reviewers in 2025

Peer reviewing is the foundation of modern scholarship, with external specialists being asked to fairly check and evaluate submitted work. This difficult and often time‐consuming activity is performed voluntarily, with the understanding that one's own scholarship shall benefit down the line from a careful analysis of its assumption, results, accuracy, and yes, language, as we are now evaluating someone else's work. At Space Weather, we pride ourselves on a fair but quick review process yielding high‐quality articles with a time from submission to first decision of less than 2 months. This would not be possible without the hard work of all our reviewers. Once a year, we take the occasion to name these reviewers to thank them for their service to the journal and the community.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

2023 IEDO Peer Review Report

On behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Industrial Efficiency and Decarbonization Office (IEDO), we are pleased to share the report from our 2023 peer review. Peer review provides us with invaluable insight into our office strategy and program direction from a diverse group of external thought leaders. The findings and actionable recommendations from peer review inform our decision making and help us maintain a constant state of evolution and growth.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRS2009

NASA Product Peer Review Process

This viewgraph presentation describes NASA's product peer review process. The contents include: 1) Inspection/Peer Review at NASA; 2) Reasons for product peer reviews; 3) Different types of peer reviews; and 4) NASA requirements for peer reviews. This presentation also includes a demonstration of an actual product peer review.

Jenks, Ken↗
DOE OSTI2023

Summary of Technical Peer Review on the Risk Assessment Framework proposed in Report INL/RPT-22-68656 for Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems

This report summarizes the peer review activities initiated by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) during fiscal year (FY) 2023 for the evaluation and improvement of the methodology developed under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, Risk Informed Systems Analysis (RISA) Pathway, digital instrumentation and control (DI&C) risk assessment project. In FY 2019, the RISA Pathway initiated a project to develop a risk assessment strategy for delivering a technical basis to support effective and secure DI&C technologies for digital upgrades/designs. A framework was proposed for this strategy, which aims to (1) provide a best-estimate, risk-informed capability to quantitatively and accurately estimate the risk impact of plant modernization, considering the introduction of high safety-significant safety-related (HSSSR) DI&C systems, (2) support and supplement existing risk-informed DI&C design guides by providing quantitative risk information and evidence, (3) offer a capability of design architecture evaluation of various DI&C systems, (4) assure the long-term safety and reliability of HSSSR DI&C systems, and (5) reduce uncertainty in costs and support integration of DI&C systems in the plant. The R&D efforts of this project from FY 2019 through FY 2022 were focused on methodology improvement and demonstration of the proposed framework for the risk assessment and design optimization of safety-critical DI&C systems. Collaborations with the nuclear industry have been initiated to support the reliability and risk assessment of their DI&C systems by using the proposed framework. In FY 2023, the framework has reached to a point for a technical peer review and obtain stakeholder feedback. This peer review activity includes coordination of the reviews performed by a group of industry stakeholders, documentation of the peer review suggestions, providing resolutions and responses to the peer review comments. The objective of this technical peer review is to obtain representative feedback on the proposed framework to improve the technical qualities of its methodology and readiness for deployment to the industry. Feedback may identify potential areas for improvement and further development. The Subject Matter experts were invited to review the latest project report documenting the methodology developed in the project and provide evaluations of the technical qualities of the proposed framework and relevant methods. The reviewed project report is “An Integrated Framework for Risk Assessment of High Safety-significant Safety-related Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants: Methodology and Demonstration” INL/RPT-22-68656 (short as “INL/RPT-22-68656” in this report). This peer review report documents the technical questions provided for technical peer review and introduces the technical peer reviewers from the stakeholders including nuclear utilities, regulators, and universities. Comments from technical peer reviewers and the resolutions and responses to these comments are outlined. Insights and lessons learned from the technical peer review are summarized in conclusions and future work. The primary audience of this report are DI&C designers, engineers, and probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) practitioners. This includes stakeholders, such as the nuclear utilities and regulators who consider the deployment and upgrade of DI&C systems, DI&C software developers and reviewers, and cybersecurity specialists.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Water Power Technologies Office: 2022 Project Peer Review

The Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO), part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), held a virtual peer review on July 18–29, 2022. The purpose of peer review is to evaluate DOE-funded projects for their contributions to the mission and goals of the office, progress made against stated objectives, and the office’s overall management and performance. The peer review process enables external stakeholders to provide feedback on the most impactful use of taxpayer funding and develop recommendations for the most efficient and effective ways to accelerate industry development in power technologies. This report includes the results of WPTO’s 2022 Peer Review.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

The role of peer review and science for advancing public understanding

We live in a time of rapid change. The Covid-19 pandemic has united the world to understand and develop solutions to protect the health and wellbeing of society. At the same time, access to information on the internet and social media has exploded. People are exposed to information with many claims. Some of the information is relevant and accurate. A significant fraction may be inaccurate, biased, and potentially dangerous. With Covid-19, the information might point to cures that are toxic or risks that are not relevant. The scientific community has developed a process to develop and convey knowledge. The validation of results and their interpretation is critical to advancing knowledge. The core of the scientific process is based on developing a hypothesis-driven concept, designing and executing an experimental approach to prove or disprove the hypothesis, conducting a statistical analysis of the results to confirm their validity, and interpreting their meaning and impact. When their work is completed the scientist prepares to publish the work. Publication requires peer review. Hypotheses, experimental approaches, results, and interpretation of results are independently and anonymously reviewed by a scientific peer. The reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field. The peer review process is essential for the integrity of the scientific process. Without a robust scientific process, society cannot discriminate between validated results and interpretations and biased, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous conjecture. With inaccurate science society and policy makers may make poor decisions that could hurt people and the world around them. While scientists should not censor information available to the public, scientists have a responsibility to inform the public. We must articulate what the scientific process is and why it is essential when considering the validity of information. Scientist are responsible for pointing out when public information has not been vetted through a scientific process and therefore cannot be considered conclusive. Scientists are responsible for highlighting information that has been generated and vetted with the scientific process. Over time, our goal is for the public to value the scientific process based on peer review. The public could become enlightened to the necessity for peer review to support decisions and action. Scientists need to contribute to advancing public knowledge. When invited to serve as a peer reviewer, scientists have a responsibility to contribute to the process. We all are extremely busy making peer review a distraction. While peer review does not directly benefit our own work and career, it benefits our chosen field of science. This is very important for the research area that our journal, Water-Energy Nexus, is focusing on. We cover the convergence of science and technology integrating across large spatial ranges (micro to global) in environmental pollution and the balance of remediation issues with energy use. Water-Energy Nexus wants to provide scientists with a platform for scientific debate and discussion on this rich and complicated topic. With the manuscripts submitted to WEN cover integrated research topics across a broad range of subjects from environment sciences through energy engineering, the role of peer review is essential. Peer review on a new submission to WEN should not be biased towards a specific science field. It should be done considering the complex nature of issues in the water-energy nexus. Scientists need to contribute to the public dialog. To accomplish these goals, we need to be honest, accurate, articulate, and use understandable language. The impact of WEN is very diverse affecting society in many ways. The scientific audience for WEN is diverse and readers may not fully understand the content of the papers outside their research expertise. Therefore, scientists, especially those who want to contribute to WEN, should work with communications specialists to convey message to benefit society. The audience includes the general public and researchers outside the author’s core specialty. While the peer-reviewed journal article is the cornerstone of our careers and critical for advancing scientific knowledge, a general interest story could benefit society even more. The author cannot lose sight that our work has two audiences, the science community, and more importantly, our family, friends, neighbors, and policy makers.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2003

A Study of Technical Engineering Peer Reviews at NASA

This report describes the state of practices of design reviews at NASA and research into what can be done to improve peer review practices. There are many types of reviews at NASA: required and not, formalized and informal, programmatic and technical. Standing project formal reviews such as the Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review are a required part of every project and mission development. However, the technical, engineering peer reviews that support teams' work on such projects are informal, some times ad hoc, and inconsistent across the organization. The goal of this work is to identify best practices and lessons learned from NASA's experience, supported by academic research and methodologies to ultimately improve the process. This research has determined that the organization, composition, scope, and approach of the reviews impact their success. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) can identify key areas of concern before or in the reviews. Product definition tools like the Project Priority Matrix, engineering-focused Customer Value Chain Analysis (CVCA), and project or system-based Quality Function Deployment (QFD) help prioritize resources in reviews. The use of information technology and structured design methodologies can strengthen the engineering peer review process to help NASA work towards error-proofing the design process.

Chao, Lawrence P.↗
DOE OSTI2024

2023 Peer Review Final Report

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy requires each of its programs to conduct periodic peer reviews to enhance EERE program planning. May 16–18, 2023, the Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies Office (AMMTO) held an in-person peer review of its program activities in which an independent panel of experts provided AMMTO with feedback on how well the new office’s programs align with its overarching goals and mission statement, identified possible course correction, and shared information. This review marks AMMTO’s first in-person peer review since the Advanced Manufacturing Office evolved into AMMTO and the Industrial Decarbonization and Efficiency Office. A detailed summary of observations, findings, impact, and recommendations is contained in the following report.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

BETO 2021 Peer Review - Task X- Project Management

This presentation serves as the peer review requirement for FCIC Task X. It covers structure, approach, impact, and accomplishments. The project will be scored by a peer review panel based on the presentation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Water Power Technologies Office 2019 Peer Review Final Report

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE’s) Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO, or “the office”) 2019 Peer Review was held on October 8–10, 2019, in Alexandria, Virginia. The purpose of the peer review was to evaluate DOE-funded projects for their contribution to the mission and goals of the office, to assess progress made against stated objectives, and to assess the office’s overall management and performance. All programs within EERE are required to undertake rigorous, objective peer reviews covering their key projects, as well as 80%–90% of their funded active project portfolio every two years.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2009

The JSC Engineering Directorate Product Peer Review Process

The JSC Engineering Directorate has developed a Product Peer Review process in support of NASA policies for project management and systems engineering. The process complies with the requirements of NPR 7120.5, NPR 7123.1 and NPR 7150.2 and follows the guidance in NASA/SP-2007-6105. This presentation will give an overview of the process followed by a brief demonstration of an actual peer review, with audience participation.

Jenks, Kenneth C.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Independent Peer Review of Communications, Navigation, and Networking re-Configurable Testbed (CoNNeCT) Project Antenna Pointing Subsystem (APS) Integrated Gimbal Assembly (IGA) Structural Analysis

Glenn Research Center Chief Engineer's Office requested an independent review of the structural analysis and modeling of the Communications, Navigation, and Networking re-Configurable Testbed (CoNNeCT) Project Antenna Pointing Subsystem (APS) Integrated Gimbal Assembly (IGA) to be conducted by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC). At this time, the IGA had completed its critical design review (CDR). The assessment was to be a peer review of the NEi-NASTRAN1 model of the APS Antenna, and not a peer review of the design and the analysis that had been completed by the GRC team for CDR. Thus, only a limited amount of information was provided on the structural analysis. However, the NESC team had difficulty separating analysis concerns from modeling issues. The team studied the NASTRAN model, but did not fully investigate how the model was used by the CoNNeCT Project and how the Project was interpreting the results. The team's findings, observations, and NESC recommendations are contained in this report.

Raju, Ivatury S.↗
DOE OSTI2020

2019 Project Peer Review Report

This document summarizes the evaluations provided by an independent external panel of experts at the 2019 U.S. Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office's Peer Review meeting on March 4–7, 2019 in Denver, CO. BETO manages a diverse portfolio of technologies covering the full spectrum of bioenergy production, from the feedstock source to end use. BETO systematically prioritizes research and development (R&D) into technology opportunities across a range of emerging scientific breakthroughs and technology-readiness levels. This approach supports a diverse R&D portfolio while developing the most promising and widely applicable technologies, testing technologies as integrated processes, and verifying integrated processes at the engineering scale. These technologies will use a broad variety of currently underused domestic biomass and waste resources to produce increasing volumes of biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower. The biennial peer review process enables external stakeholders to provide feedback on the responsible use of taxpayer funding and develop recommendations for the most efficient and effective ways to accelerate the development of a bioenergy industry. BETO completed these reviews in 2019. This report includes the results of both the Project Peer Review meeting held in March 2019 and the Program Management Review meeting held in July 2019.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2020

DOE Advanced Manufacturing Office 2020 Peer Review

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) requires each of its programs to conduct periodic peer reviews to enhance EERE program planning. The EERE Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) held a virtual peer review of its program activities online on June 2–3, 2020. An independent panel of experts provided AMO with feedback on how well the program’s portfolio aligns with its overarching goals, identified possible course correction and new direction, and shared information.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Securing Solar for the Grid (S2G): SETO Peer Review

In this session at the SETO Peer Review, several solar cybersecurity projects will be discussed. INL will provide an overview of the multi-lab Securing Solar for the Grid (S2G) project. We will highlight the focus areas of standards development and best practices, cybersecurity tool kits and supply chain analysis, and education and workforce development.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗