scholarly journals Report of the kaon subcommittee of nuclear science advisory committee: Final report

1989 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. D. Barnes ◽  
J. Domingo ◽  
M. Einhorn ◽  
H. Feshbach ◽  
H. Jackson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Nuclear Science ◽  
Science Advisory ◽  
Science Advisory Committee

scholarly journals The policy worker and the professor: understanding how New Zealand policy workers utilise academic research

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Lofgren ◽  
Dona Cavagnoli
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Science Advisory ◽  
Everyday Work ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Science Advisory Committee ◽  
Local Research

How do policy workers actually use academic research and advice? While there are several recent studies regarding this question from other Westminster jurisdictions (e.g. Talbot and Talbot, 2014, for the UK; Head et al., 2014, for Australia; Amara, Ouimet and Landry, 2004 and Ouimet et al., 2010, Canada), similar academic studies have been rare in New Zealand. So far, most of the local research in this field has been conducted by the prime minister’s chief science advisor and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee, with the particular instrumental purpose of improving the government’s ministries and agencies’ ‘use of evidence in both the formation and evaluation of policy’. However, none of these studies have asked how, and to what extent, policy workers in government are utilising academic research  in their everyday work. 

scholarly journals THE REVIEWING PROCESS FOR ISPRS EVENTS

2018 ◽  
Vol IV-5 ◽  
pp. 53-58
Author(s):  
C. Mallet ◽  
I. Dowman ◽  
G. Vosselman ◽  
U. Stilla ◽  
L. Halounova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
Future Event ◽  
Committee Chair ◽  
Programme Committee ◽  
International Programme ◽  
Science Advisory ◽  
Science Advisory Committee

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> Following the first initiatives taken by the International Programme Committee of the XXIII<sup>rd</sup> ISPRS Congress in Prague (Czech Republic) in 2016, modifications of the reviewing process of ISPRS events were further considered during the years 2017 and 2018. This evolution first targets to better fit such a process to the currents requirements and expectations of the ISPRS community. Secondly, it aims to provide unified guidelines for the different steps of the process. Under the aegis of the 2020 Congress Director and ISAC (International Science Advisory Committee) chair, several discussions were held in-between September 2017 and June 2018 with ISAC members, Technical Commission Presidents (TCP), council members, 2016 and 2020 Congress Programme Chairs. This document serves as a unique transparent basis that applies for all kinds of ISPRS events (from Congress and Geospatial Week to smaller workshops), and all categories of people that are bound to be involved in the evaluation process of scientific contributions (authors, reviewers, TCPs, &amp;hellip; ). It also specifies the evaluation criteria for the works submitted to ISPRS events, both for full papers and abstracts. Subsequently, it helps authors to improve the content and shape of their contributions. Eventually, this paper is targeted to help new chairs to smoothly prepare their future event. The following guidelines were first adopted for the 2018 Technical Commission Symposia.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document