Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

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↗
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↗
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.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Appreciation of the 2015 JGR Space Physics Peer Reviewers

The Editors of the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics are deeply indebted to the many people among the research community that serve this journal through peer review. The journal could not exist without the time and effort invested by the community through this voluntary activity, providing expert evaluations and thoughtful assessments of the work of others. In 2015, the journal had 1506 scientists contribute to the process with at least one peer review, for a total of 3575 reviews completed, including additional reviews of resubmitted manuscripts. There were 277 reviewers that contributed four or more reports in 2015. The average number of reviews per referee in 2015 was, therefore, 2.4. Note that the total number of manuscript final decisions (i.e., accept or reject) for Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) Space Physics was 1147 in 2015. Of this, 774 were accepted and 373 were declined, for an acceptance rate of 67% last year. If the 1334 "revision" decisions are included in the tally, then the total number of decisions made in 2015 was 2481. Working out the arithmetic, it means that on average, a manuscript gets about 1.2 revision decisions before a final accept-or-reject decision. This explains the ~3.1 average number of reviews per manuscript throughout each paper's lifetime in the submission-revision editorial process. We are pleased and happy that the research community is willing and able to devote their resources toward this service endeavor. We appreciate each and every one of you that helped maintain the high quality of papers in JGR Space Physics last year. We look forward to another excellent year working with all of you through the year ahead.

Liemohn, Michael W.↗
DOE OSTI2024

2023 Project Peer Review Report

The Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) within the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy supports the research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of technologies aimed at mobilizing domestic renewable carbon resources for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions across the U.S. economy. BETO systematically prioritizes RD&D into technology opportunities across a range of emerging scientific breakthroughs and technology readiness levels in the subprogram areas illustrated in Figure 1. This approach supports a diverse portfolio while developing the most promising and widely applicable technologies, testing technologies as integrated processes, and demonstrating integrated processes to support scale-up. These technologies will use a broad variety of renewable carbon resources to produce increasing volumes of biofuels and bioproducts. More information on BETO’s mission, goals, and strategic approaches can be found in the Bioenergy Technologies Office Multi-Year Program Plan. 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. This report includes the results of the Project Peer Review meeting held on April 3–7, 2023, in Denver, Colorado.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
NASA NTRS2011

In-Suit Light Exercise (ISLE) Prebreathe Protocol Peer Review Assessment

The performance of extravehicular activity (EVA) by National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronauts involves the risk of decompression sickness. This risk has been mitigated by the use of oxygen "prebreathe" to effectively wash out tissue nitrogen prior to each EVA. Now that the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) is being retired, high-pressure oxygen will become a limited resource. The In-Suit Light Exercise (ISLE) Prebreathe Protocol offers several potential benefits including its potential to save 6 pounds of oxygen per EVA. At the request of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center, the peer review convened on October 14, 2010. The major recommendation of the Review Committee was that the ISLE protocol was acceptable for operational use as a prebreathe option prior to EVA. The results from the peer review are contained in this document.

Brady, Timothy K.↗
DOE OSTI1998

Fusion Safety Program Peer Review (August 31 and September 1, 1999) [Slides]

The Fusion Safety Program Peer Review conference, held on August 31 and September 1, 1999, focuses on advancing the understanding and management of radioactive and hazardous materials within deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion machines. The conference aims to investigate the behavior of significant sources of radioactive materials, such as activation products, dust, tritium, and beryllium. Additionally, it seeks to comprehend how various energy sources in fusion facilities—such as magnets, plasma, decay heat, and chemical reactions—can mobilize these materials. A key objective of the conference is to develop integrated, state-of-the-art analytic tools to demonstrate the safety and environmental potential of fusion technology. Furthermore, the conference assesses and evaluates safety and environmental issues associated with emerging fusion concepts, including those in the ARIES, ALPS, APEX, and IFE projects. This comprehensive approach aims to ensure the safe and sustainable advancement of fusion energy.

70 - PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Peer Review of X441A Fission Gas Release Data

The purpose of this document is to demonstrate completion of the independent peer review for the fission gas release measurement of fuel pins irradiated in the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) as part of the X441A experiment. The specific data reviewed includes reported plenum volume and pressure from the measurement from the fuel pins. Fraction percent of fission gas release is derived in part from these measurements but is excluded from the data reviewed.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS2011

Peer Review of Launch Environments

Catastrophic failures of launch vehicles during launch and ascent are currently modeled using equivalent trinitrotoluene (TNT) estimates. This approach tends to over-predict the blast effect with subsequent impact to launch vehicle and crew escape requirements. Bangham Engineering, located in Huntsville, Alabama, assembled a less-conservative model based on historical failure and test data coupled with physical models and estimates. This white paper summarizes NESC's peer review of the Bangham analytical work completed to date.

Wilson, Timmy R.↗
NASA NTRS2011

In-Suit Light Exercise (ISLE) Prebreathe Protocol Peer Review Assessment: Appendices - Part 2

The performance of extravehicular activity (EVA) by National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronauts involves the risk of decompression sickness. This risk has been mitigated by the use of oxygen "prebreathe" to effectively wash out tissue nitrogen prior to each EVA. Now that the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) is being retired, high-pressure oxygen will become a limited resource. The In-Suit Light Exercise (ISLE) Prebreathe Protocol offers several potential benefits including its potential to save 6 pounds of oxygen per EVA. At the request of the NASA Engineering and Safety Center, the peer review convened on October 14, 2010. The major recommendation of the Review Committee was that the ISLE protocol was acceptable for operational use as a prebreathe option prior to EVA. The appendices to Volume I of the report are contained in this document.

Brady, Timothy K.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Using Arcane Data: Past Performance in NASA Science’s Principal Investigator (PI) Development Programs and Improving Future Peer Review for Space Flight Missions

This panel will explore challenges and initial findings from three qualitative studies that use the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Science Mission Directorate's(SMD) internal administrative data to begin to assess program effectiveness and document outputs and outcomes. SMD has funded both at and outside NASA, projects that promotethe development of SMD's future principal investigators (PI) workforce and science and technology investigations on space flight missions that advance the high priority science,technology, and exploration objectives. NASA's internal administrative data are arcane because they developed outside of relational databases. The studies reveal unique challenges to locating and using these data to document effective program processes, i.e.,peer review criteria for large flight missions, and results from the PI-development projects,e.g. the Hands-On Project Experience (HOPE) Training Opportunity solicitations limited to NASA Centers the Jet Propulsion Laboratory; and graduate student/postdoctoral opportunities at higher education institutions.

Sladek, Mary Frances↗
NASA NTRS2022

The need for reference-able and peer reviewed position papers

Space Physics community members are putting substantial efforts and ideas into position papers, in preparation for the U.S. Heliophysics Decadal Survey process; an analysis of the current state of the field and where future research, mission programs, and funding should focus. Furthermore, Space Physics community members in Europe and the U.S. have recently put substantial efforts and ideas into position papers for Vision 2050 and Heliophysics 2050. There are also other ideas in the community about the needs and focus of future Space Physics research efforts, whether they were submitted to other road mapping activities, or have yet to find the appropriate home. With this in mind, we have created a Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences Research Topic ’The Future of Space Physics 2022’, to provide a format for a reference-able, peer reviewed, archived, accessible collection of these ideas from around the world. We wish to make these ideas available to the national academies decadal survey committees, the broader research community and a wider audience, by developing this collection. The collection will publish high-quality papers on key topics across the field of Space Physics, aiming to highlight recent advances in the field, whilst emphasizing important directions and new possibilities for future inquiries.

Alexa Jean Halford↗