Articles should deal with topics applicable to the broad field of program evalua tion. Implications for practicing evaluators should be clearly identified. Examples of contributions include but are not limited to reviews of new developments in evaluation and descriptions of a current evaluation effort, research problem, or technique. Manuscripts should include appropriate references and not exceed 10 double-spaced typewritten pages in length.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Chubin, D.E. and Hackett, E.J. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
2.
Cozzens, S.E.Literature-Based Data in Research Evaluation: A Manager's Guide to Bibliometrics. Available from Program Evaluation Staff, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC 20550.
3.
Kostoff, R.N. (1992). Research Impact Assessment. In B. Bozeman and J. Melkeus (eds.), Assessing R&D Impacts: Method and Practice . New York: Kluwer.
4.
McCullough, J.M. (1989). First comprehensive survey of NSF applicants focuses on their concerns about proposal review. Science, Technology and Human Values, 14, 78-102.
5.
United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1991). Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade (Report OTA-SET-491). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
