About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

MWD-76-78 1 (1976-01-12)

handle is hein.gao/gaobabkvq0001 and id is 1 raw text is: R5ZSTRICTSD .y,- Fot1 beo cutiojAd tho Otnova - Accounting Office exit o te basis o secfiC approval by the. 01ica of Congressional Rela~tos. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES £22 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20048 B- 133183 JAN 12 1976 RELEASED The Honorable James G. Symington Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, '2 ({1 Research, and Technology , Committee on Science and Technology /House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: In accordance with your October 17, 1975, request, we have Lexamin-0- for accuracy and completenesskl-the treatment of peer reviewers' comments (in a September 5, 1972, National Science Foundation staff memorandum) recommending support for (what is now)the Individualized Science Instructional System project7 Xs you agreed, we have obtained Foundation officials' views on our findings, and their comments are considered in the report. Our findings are summarized below and discussed in more detail in the enclosure. The September 5 memorandum briefly summarized the com- ments of 11 peer reviewers on five general areas and gave a more detailed account of another comment. To the extent that these comments are summarized in the memorandum, they are ac- curately represented. However, about 45 comments by 9 of the 11 peer reviewers were not explicitly dealt with in the mem- orandum, nor was documentation on file to indicate their dis- position. A Foundation official said that the Foundation's program staff considered all concerns raised by reviewers, and she orally recounted the disposition of each comment. Thirty-three excerpts expressing only favorable comments from peer reviewers were quoted in the memorandum. According to Foundation officials, these excerpts were used to explain why the program staff recommended supporting the proposal. Twenty-eight of the excerpts appeared to accurately represent the reviewers' thoughts, but the other five could be considered to not accurately reflect the entire thought of the passages from which they were taken. In addition, the memorandum stated that all reviewers recommended funding. We believe that the rationale for this statement was not fully justified with respect to 3 of the 11 reviewers. MWD-76-78 40%

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most