External Reviewers

Its unique design suggests several accident scenarios that could not occur at other reactors. For example, failure to supply ECC to 1/16 of the core due to the failure of an ECC inlet valve. On the other hand, some phenomena of concern to other types of reactors seem impossible (e.g., core-concrete interactions). The list of phenomena for consideration came from previous studies, comments of an external review group and from literature review. From this, came the issues selected for the accident progression event tree (APET) according to uncertainty and point estimates. 

All chapters in this volume have been reviewed by the editors, one external reviewer chosen by the editors, and two external reviewers chosen by the editorial board of the series on Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science. We are grateful to these reviewers for their careful reading of the contributions and for their suggestions for revisions. The editors were also the organizers of the Fourth Advanced Seminar. 

Accountability and transparency have several aspects reporting to and control by supervisory bodies clarity and openness of procedures criteria for decision-making and decisions made and existence of systems for complaint and appeal. Accountability and transparency can be evaluated by examining, in particular reporting requirements, external reviews of the authority s performance frequency of publications and content of website (and other means of communication between the DRA, the public and the regulated parties) bodies to which complaints are directed and appeals procedures. However, the individual details of these elements of regulation make quantitative comparison difficult. 

In any study involving analyses, part of the responsibility of management at the analytical laboratory is the review and approval of intermediate and final reported results. In an LSMBS, such review and approval must take place at each analytical laboratory involved in the study. However, different laboratories may focus on different aspects of the analyses, and some means to ensure that review procedures and approaches are consistent among the laboratories is needed. It is advisable, therefore, to include an additional review, termed here an external review , beyond that conducted by the individual laboratories. 

External review is of major importance in ensuring the outcome and reportability of LSMBS study results. Additional experts have the opportunity to review the data and results just after their generation, at a point where corrections can be easily proposed and made. In addition, external review aids in achieving consistency in the results reported by different laboratories. Finally, external review provides feedback for optimization of the analytical and instrumental parameters at each laboratory. 

Each laboratory in the OPMBS was required to send a copy of each workbook and the associated raw data, to study management soon after completion of the analysis. This information was provided after internal technical review but before local quality assurance review. Study management used a team of experienced residue chemists to review the results and the raw data and to ensure that the information reported was fully supportable. The laboratory remained at all times responsible for the data reported, however, and the results of the external review were formally considered to be advisory. 

The external review pointed up several types of occurrences that had to be addressed at the laboratories. In some cases, corrections had to be made, for example if elution peaks had been misidentifled or if the laboratory data system integrated noise and reported a peak where there was none. Such occurrences were observed primarily in the early stages of the study and decreased as the laboratories refined integration parameters for their individual commodities. In other cases, it became apparent that... 

EPA. 1989b. Evaluation of the potential carcinogenicity of lead compounds In support of reportable quantity adjustments pursuant to CERCLA Section 102, external review draft. March 1989 EPA/600/889/045A, NTIS PB89-181366/AS. 

EPA. 1983b. Reportable quantity document for acrylonitrile. Cincinnati, OH U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. External Review Draft ECAO-CIN- R005. 

In addition to this book, volunteered papers presented at ISMOM2004 and accepted after rigorous external review was published as a special issue by the international journal Biology and Fertility of Soils. This special issue serves a companion volume of this IUSS- and IUPAC-sponsored book published by Springer-Verlag. 

The editors would like to express their gratitude to EAWAG/Diibendorf (Switzerland) for hosting the preparatory meeting, to the various external reviewers who carefully looked into the draft chapters and, last but not least, to Dr. Raewyn M. Town (Queen s University of Belfast) for scrutinising all chapters in terms of their scientific and linguistic qualities and the proper use of IUPAC terminology. 

EPA. 1987k. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Cyanide. Prepared by the Office of Elealth and Environmental Assessment Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH, for the Office of Drinking Water, Washington, DC. External Review Draft. 

All submissions to RAP go through a rigorous peer review process, overseen by the Editorial Board, which includes external review. Starting this year, all RAP papers will be published electronically on SpringerLink.com with Springer journsis as well as in book format. 

US-EPA. 2006. Child Specific Exposure Factors Handbook 2006 (External Review Draft). Washington, DC National Center for Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development. Presently undergoing update (In press), http //cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm7deid = 56747 US-EPA. 2007a. EPA/OPPT Exposure Assessment Tools and Models website, http //www.epa. gov/opptintr/ exposure /pub s/opptexpo. htm... 

Does the fact that the abstract is evaluated by external reviewers make it easier or more difficult to write Explain. 

External funding originates outside your institution (e.g., the NSF) proposals are judged by anonymous external reviewers. 

All activities carried out under the management system must be recorded and documented to facilitate retrieval as part of management, external review, or an audit. These documents must be identified and indexed and must be kept securely for a defined period. Electronic records must be secure, available only to properly identified personnel, and appropriately backed... 

The main external review body in the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but at some later stage it may be necessary to prepare a monograph for the quality control of a new product and this would be achieved by interacting with officials from the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) in order to have a section published in the pharmacopoeia. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to introduce both of these organizations and provide an understanding of their basic functions. 

We also thank the external reviewers for providing invaluable suggestions and the staffs of Wiley-VCH Verlag for planning, editing, and producing this second edition. 

There are many types of development organizations and within them there are different types of review process. Most but not all, encourage external reviews. Some of the others tolerate them. Regardless of the preference, external review is usually beneficial to all interested parties. 

Unlike public review, which are almost exclusively for final drafts, private reviews cover several drafts of a single standard, drawing inputs to help its refinement through most of the process. There is a reluctance in everyone, not just developers, to hold up their early attempts, their unfinished work, to public scrutiny. That makes private reviews of early draft more valuable than public reviews. At each major revision of the standard, in many SDO s, the draft is distribution to the members for review and comment. For example, within ISO, each Committee Draft, CD, is sent to each national body for review, for comment, and for ballot. Liaisons and other interested reviewers, experts in some aspect of the standard, are also asked to participate in the review. The end result is that more aspects of the standard are considered throughout the development process. In addition, those external reviewers have a say and therefore a stake in the resultant standard. 

USEPA (1984) Health Assessment Document for Chloroform. External review draft. EPA-600/8-84-004A. 

External Review Committee, Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM (1985-1988)... 

USEPA (2000) Benchmark dose technical guidance document (external review draft). Washington, DC, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA/630/R-00/001 http //cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/raf/recordisplay.cfm deid=20871). 

The chapter coordinators met over a three-year period to evaluate and revise various drafts of the document. Once the RO found the unedited final draft acceptable, it was sent to over 100 contact points throughout the world for review and comment. The unedited draft was also made available on the IPCS web site for external review and comment for a period of two months. These comments were peer-reviewed by the RO and chapter coordinators, and additions and revisions to the draft document were made if necessary. A file of all comments received and revisions made on the draft is available from the RO. When the RO was satisfied as to the scientific correctness and completeness of the document, it was forwarded to an IPCS editor for language editing, reference checking, and preparation of camera-ready copy. After approval by the Director, IPCS, the manuscript was submitted to the WHO Office of Publications for printing. It will also be available on the IPCS web site. 

The necessary components of a complete QA/QC program include internal QC criteria that demonstrate acceptable levels of performance, as determined by a QA review (audit). External review of data and procedures is accomplished by the monitoring activities of accreditation organizations such as the Standards Council of Canada (SCC, 2005). This includes laboratory evaluation samples (PT samples, see above) and a periodic (sometimes every 2 years) on-site assessment of all QA/ QC procedures, performed by external assessors from the accrediting organization. 

In providing guidance on setting SQSs (environment and human related) 3 main principles must be preserved 1) standards need to be set in a consistent manner, 2) standards need to be transparent, and 3) standards should be audited by an external reviewer. 

Peer review is also intended to help authors. External review can help improve the presentation and interpretation of data alike, and ultimately, the research. Clearly and succinctly describing a scientific study is challenging, and reviewers provide valuable feedback. Few manuscripts are so well written that they are accepted without revision. Data and interpretation that seem clear to authors are not always comprehensible to readers. Scientific research is both competitive and cooperative at its best, peer review is a part of the cooperative process. For example, after evaluating data, a reviewer may suggest an alternative explanation or additional experiments that trigger ideas for further research. Also, a reviewer pointing out an error can save an author the embarrassment of subsequently publishing a correction. 

U.S. EPA (1994), EPA 600/6-88/005Cb. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-like Compounds, Vol. II Properties, Sources, Occurence and Background Exposure External Review Draft", U.S. EPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. 

Johnson J (1995), Environ. Sci. Technol. 29 24A-25A. Dioxin risk Are we sure yet Neidhard H (1990), Vortrag auf dem GDCh Info-Tag 496/90. Das internationale System der toxischen Aquivalente und Bewertung von Quellen", Frankfurt, 09.03.1990 U.S. EPA (1994), EPA 600/BP-92/001C. Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compound, Vol. Ill External Review Draft", U.S. EPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. 

Following the experiences at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal during Project Eagle, an experimental facility to test multiple destruction technologies was constructed at Tooele Army Depot in Utah as the Army began to consider destruction of obsolete unitary munitions.In 1982, after substantial internal and external review of the test results from the Tooele facility, incineration was selected for future destruction of chemical weapons. Johnston Atoll, over 800 miles south-west of the Hawaiian islands, was chosen as the site for the first full-scale incinerator facility. 

This document was written by Dr. Dennis M. Opresko, Life Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Internal peer review was provided by Dr. Robert Young, Dr. Annetta Watson, and Mr Robert Ross. External review of the toxicity data was provided by Dr. Thomas J. Bucci, Integrated Services, White HaU, AR and Dr. I.K Ho of the U. of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson MS. External review of the derivation of the RfDs was provided by Drs. Michael Dourson and Susan Velazquez of Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, Cincinnati, OH, and Dr. William Hartley of Tulane Medical Center, New Orleans LA. Additional reviews were provided by Mr. Joe King, Dr. Jack Heller, Ms. Veronique Hauschild, Ms. Bonnie Gaborek, Mr. Maurice Weeks, Maj. Robert Gum, and Mr Kenneth Williams of the U.S Army. 

---