Peer Review Process Sample Clauses

Peer Review Process. The editor appoints two reviewers whose names are hidden from the authors. Authors' data is unknown to reviewers. The paper will be published in ACE provided that the two reviews are positive. If reviewers have any comments, the authors receive reviews to read and consider these comments. The editor decides whether the paper fulfill all requirements i.e. formal and scientific. Paper publication requires the author's final approval. As soon as the publication appears in print and in electronic forms on the Internet there is no possibility to change the content of the article.

Peer Review Process. The Department shall implement a process in collaboration with volunteer CSB to ensure that at least five percent of community mental health and substance abuse programs receive independent peer reviews annually, per federal requirements and guidelines, to review the quality and appropriateness of services. The Department shall manage this process to ensure that peer reviewers do not monitor their own programs.

Peer Review Process a. The Peer Review Committee will meet with the evaluee to discuss the Student Experience Forms, Self-Evaluation, Classroom Observation(s), and prior Peer Review Reports (if necessary) and recommend a plan for professional growth. The plan will identify and address strengths and concerns. The committee and evaluee will propose activities to remediate identified deficiencies. This information is to be contained in the District standard peer review report that is forwarded to the ▇▇▇▇. The Peer Review Committee chair and appropriate ▇▇▇▇ will discuss the report, and the report will be included and considered by the ▇▇▇▇ as part of the evaluation process. b. The evaluee will be provided with the Peer Review Report within five (5) working Days of the meeting discussed in (a) above. c. If the evaluee wishes to respond to the Peer Review Report, any response must be made in writing to the committee chair within five (5) working Days of receipt of the report and the comments will be made part of the official evaluation packet.

Peer Review Process i. Peer observations shall be conducted by faculty familiar through training or experience with the assignment of the bargaining unit member undergoing evaluation. Training on the peer evaluation process and forms will be available for faculty. ii. Peers shall base their review of the bargaining unit member on observations of the bargaining unit member in their instruction and/or communication with students, colleagues, and other members of the college community. iii. The peer evaluation process will include observation of the bargaining unit member in their assigned roles utilizing the approved peer evaluation observation form. If it is mutually agreed by the peer observer and the manager that observation is not possible, an interview may replace the observation. iv. Each peer shall complete and submit the signed peer evaluation form to the evaluating manager. A unit member, other than a Department Chair, shall not be required to serve as a peer reviewer in more than two peer reviews per year unless the unit member so agrees. A unit member, other than a Department Chair, shall not be required to serve as a peer reviewer during any semester in which they are being evaluated unless the bargaining unit member so agrees.

Peer Review Process. The School District and Education Minnesota-Monticello will agree upon a procedure for teacher assistance, which shall be called the Peer Review Process. The School District and Education Minnesota-Monticello agree to use the Monticello Continuous Professional Growth plan.

Peer Review Process.  The editor appoints two reviewers whose names are hidden from the authors.  Authors' data is unknown to reviewers.  The paper will be published in ACE provided that the reviews are positive. If reviewers have any comments, the authors receive reviews to read and consider these comments.  The editor decides whether the paper fulfill all requirements i.e. formal and scientific.  Paper publication requires the author's final approval.  As soon as the publication appears in print and in electronic forms on the Internet there is no possibility to change the content of the article.

Peer Review Process a. The Peer Review Committee will meet with the evaluee to discuss the Student Experience Forms, Individual appointment evaluations (in aggregate), Self- Evaluation, Classroom Observations, and prior Peer Review Reports (if necessary) and recommend a plan for professional growth. The plan will identify and address strengths and concerns. The committee and evaluee will propose activities to remediate identified deficiencies. This information is to be contained in a peer review report that is forwarded to the appropriate ▇▇▇▇. The Peer Review Committee chair and the appropriate ▇▇▇▇ will discuss the report, and the report will be included and considered by the ▇▇▇▇ as part of the evaluation process. b. The evaluee will be provided with the Peer Review Report within five (5) working Days of the meeting discussed in (a) above. c. If the evaluee wishes to respond to the Peer Review Report, any response must be in writing to the committee chair within five (5) working Days of receipt of the report, and the comments will be made part of the official evaluation packet.

Peer Review Process. The federal parties will consider input from the Parties, through the TCC, and from the public regarding which studies should be peer reviewed. At the discretion of the Secretary, reports and data sets with the potential of having a major effect on the Secretarial Determination will be peer reviewed by subject-matter experts. For Immediate Release March 9, 2009 MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SUBJECT: Scientific Integrity Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security. The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public. To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking. The selection of scientists and technology professionals for positions in the executive branch should be based on their scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity. By this memorandum, I assign to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Director) the responsibility for ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch's involvement with scientific and technological processes. The Director shall confer, as appropriate, with the heads of executive departments and agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget and offices and agencies within the Executive Office of the President (collectively, the "agencies"), and recommend a plan to achieve that goal throughout the executive branch. Specifically, I direct the following: 1. Within 120 days from the date of this memorandum, the Director shall develop recommendations for Presidential action designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch, based on the following principles: (a) The selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions in the executive branch should be based on the candidate's...

Peer Review Process. PCL will conduct a peer review process (the “Peer Review Process”) involving professionals selected from among the North America wide PCL network who are not members of the Project Team. The Peer Review Process includes periodic due diligence regarding important design considerations, building functionality and construction costing analysis, and technical information to assist the City in life cycle costing, during both the Schematic Design Stage and the Design Development Stage but in any event prior to PCL making a Fixed Price Proposal. PCL’s statement regarding how the Peer Review Process will function is as follows: (a) A dynamic and talented team with experience in design development and construction of large aquatics and public spectator facilities will be assembled by PCL involving no less than four individuals. The peer review team (the “Peer Review Team”) will include the above PCL experts and two experts representing the City. (b) The Peer Review Team will meet with the IDT at the early stages of the Project and provide comments to the plan and approach for the Project. The Peer Review Team will act solely in a review and suggestion mode to ensure that valuable lessons learned on similar projects are communicated to the IDT. At least two sessions will be held involving both the Peer Review Team and the IDT, with the Peer Review Team remaining available, on a as-needed basis, as the Project moves through construction and the commissioning phases.