OMB Peer Bulletin

December 15, 2004
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
INTRODUCTION

This Bulletin establishes that important scientific information shall be peer reviewed by
qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the federal government. We published a
proposed Bulletin on September 15, 2003. Based on public comments, we published a
revised proposal for additional comment on April 28, 2004. We are now finalizing the
April version, with minor revisions responsive to the public’s comments.

The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the government’s
scientific information. We recognize that different types of peer review are appropriate
for different types of information. Under this Bulletin, agencies are granted broad
discretion to weigh the benefits and costs of using a particular peer review mechanism for
a specific information product. The selection of an appropriate peer review mechanism
for scientific information is left to the agency’s discretion. Various types of information
are exempted from the requirements of this Bulletin, including time-sensitive health and
safety determinations, in order to ensure that peer review does not unduly delay the
release of urgent findings.

This Bulletin also applies stricter minimum requirements for the peer review of highly
influential scientific assessments, which are a subset of influential scientific information.
A scientific assessment is an evaluation of a body of scientific or technical knowledge
that typically synthesizes multiple factual inputs, data, models, assumptions, and/or
applies best professional judgment to bridge uncertainties in the available information.
To ensure that the Bulletin is not too costly or rigid, these requirements for more
intensive peer review apply only to the more important scientific assessments
disseminated by the federal government.

Even for these highly influential scientific assessments, the Bulletin leaves significant
discretion to the agency formulating the peer review plan. In general, an agency

conducting a peer review of a highly influential scientific assessment must ensure that the
peer review process is transparent by making available to the public the written charge to
the peer reviewers, the peer reviewers’ names, the peer reviewers’ report(s), and the
agency’s response to the peer reviewers’ report(s). The agency selecting peer reviewers
must ensure that the reviewers possess the necessary expertise. In addition, the agency
must address reviewers’ potential conflicts of interest (including those stemming from
ties to regulated businesses and other stakeholders) and independence from the agency.
This Bulletin requires agencies to adopt or adapt the committee selection policies
employed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)1 when selecting peer reviewers
who are not government employees. Those that are government employees are subject to
federal ethics requirements. The use of a transparent process, coupled with the selection
of qualified and independent peer reviewers, should improve the quality of government
science while promoting public confidence in the integrity of the government’s scientific
products.

PEER REVIEW

Peer review is one of the important procedures used to ensure that the quality of
published information meets the standards of the scientific and technical community. It
is a form of deliberation involving an exchange of judgments about the appropriateness
of methods and the strength of the author’s inferences.2 Peer review involves the review
of a draft product for quality by specialists in the field who were not involved in
producing the draft.

The peer reviewer’s report is an evaluation or critique that is used by the authors of the
draft to improve the product. Peer review typically evaluates the clarity of hypotheses,
the validity of the research design, the quality of data collection procedures, the
robustness of the methods employed, the appropriateness of the methods for the
1

National Academy of Sciences, “Policy and Procedures on Committee Composition and Balance and
Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports,” May 2003: Available at:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html.

2

hypotheses being tested, the extent to which the conclusions follow from the analysis,
and the strengths and limitations of the overall product.

Peer review has diverse purposes. Editors of scientific journals use reviewer comments
to help determine whether a draft scientific article is of sufficient quality, importance, and
interest to a field of study to justify publication. Research funding organizations often
use peer review to evaluate research proposals. In addition, some federal agencies make
use of peer review to obtain evaluations of draft information that contains important
scientific determinations.

Peer review should not be confused with public comment and other stakeholder
processes. The selection of participants in a peer review is based on expertise, with due
consideration of independence and conflict of interest. Furthermore, notice-andcomment procedures for agency rulemaking do not provide an adequate substitute for
peer review, as some experts -- especially those most knowledgeable in a field -- may not
file public comments with federal agencies.

The critique provided by a peer review often suggests ways to clarify assumptions,
findings, and conclusions. For instance, peer reviews can filter out biases and identify
oversights, omissions, and inconsistencies.3 Peer review also may encourage authors to
more fully acknowledge limitations and uncertainties. In some cases, reviewers might
recommend major changes to the draft, such as refinement of hypotheses, reconsideration
of research design, modifications of data collection or analysis methods, or alternative
conclusions. However, peer review does not always lead to specific modifications in the
draft product. In some cases, a draft is in excellent shape prior to being submitted for
review. In others, the authors do not concur with changes suggested by one or more
reviewers.

2

Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, Risk and the Environment: Improving
Regulatory Decision Making, Carnegie Commission, New York, 1993: 75.
3
William W. Lowrance, Modern Science and Human Values, Oxford University Press, New York, NY
1985: 85.

3

Peer review may take a variety of forms, depending upon the nature and importance of
the product. For example, the reviewers may represent one scientific discipline or a
variety of disciplines; the number of reviewers may range from a few to more than a
dozen; the names of each reviewer may be disclosed publicly or may remain anonymous
(e.g., to encourage candor); the reviewers may be blinded to the authors of the report or
the names of the authors may be disclosed to the reviewers; the reviewers may prepare
individual reports or a panel of reviewers may be constituted to produce a collaborative
report; panels may do their work electronically or they may meet together in person to
discuss and prepare their evaluations; and reviewers may be compensated for their work
or they may donate their time as a contribution to science or public service.

For large, complex reports, different reviewers may be assigned to different chapters or
topics. Such reports may be reviewed in stages, sometimes with confidential reviews that
precede a public process of panel review. As part of government-sponsored peer review,
there may be opportunity for written and/or oral public comments on the draft product.

The results of peer review are often only one of the criteria used to make decisions about
journal publication, grant funding, and information dissemination. For instance, the
editors of scientific journals (rather than the peer reviewers) make final decisions about a
manuscript’s appropriateness for publication based on a variety of considerations. In
research-funding decisions, the reports of peer reviewers often play an important role, but
the final decisions about funding are often made by accountable officials based on a
variety of considerations. Similarly, when a government agency sponsors peer review of
its own draft documents, the peer review reports are an important factor in information
dissemination decisions but rarely are the sole consideration. Agencies are not expected
to cede their discretion with regard to dissemination or use of information to peer
reviewers; accountable agency officials must make the final decisions.

4

THE NEED FOR STRONGER PEER REVIEW POLICIES

There are a multiplicity of science advisory procedures used at federal agencies and
across the wide variety of scientific products prepared by agencies.4 In response to
congressional inquiry, the U.S. General Accounting Office (now the Government
Accountability Office) documented the variability in both the definition and
implementation of peer review across agencies.5 The Carnegie Commission on Science,
Technology and Government6 has highlighted the importance of “internal” scientific
advice (within the agency) and “external” advice (through scientific advisory boards and
other mechanisms).

A wide variety of authorities have argued that peer review practices at federal agencies
need to be strengthened.7 Some arguments focus on specific types of scientific products
(e.g., assessments of health, safety and environmental hazards). 8 The
Congressional/Presidential Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management
suggests that “peer review of economic and social science information should have as
high a priority as peer review of health, ecological, and engineering information.”9

4

Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers, Harvard University Press, Boston,
1990.
5
U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Federal Agencies Vary,
GAO/RCED-99-99, Washington, D.C., 1999.
6
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, Risk and the Environment: Improving
Regulatory Decision Making, Carnegie Commission, New York, 1993: 90.
7
National Academy of Sciences, Peer Review in the Department of Energy – Office of Science and
Technology, Interim Report, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1997; National Academy of
Sciences, Peer Review in Environmental Technology Development: The Department of Energy – Office
of Science and Technology, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998; National Academy of
Sciences, Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research-Management and
Peer-Review Practices, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 2000; U.S. General Accounting Office,
EPA’s Science Advisory Board Panels: Improved Policies and Procedures Needed to Ensure Independence
and Balance, GAO-01-536, Washington, D.C., 2001; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Inspector General, Pilot Study: Science in Support of Rulemaking 2003-P-00003, Washington, D.C.,
2002; Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, In the National Interest: The
Federal Government in the Reform of K-12 Math and Science Education, Carnegie Commission, New
York, 1991; U.S. General Accounting Office, Endangered Species Program: Information on How Funds
Are Allocated and What Activities are Emphasized, GAO-02-581, Washington, D.C. 2002.
8
National Research Council, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., 1994.

5

Some agencies have formal peer review policies, while others do not. Even agencies that
have such policies do not always follow them prior to the release of important scientific
products.

Prior to the development of this Bulletin, there were no government-wide standards
concerning when peer review is required and, if required, what type of peer review
processes are appropriate. No formal interagency mechanism existed to foster crossagency sharing of experiences with peer review practices and policies. Despite the
importance of peer review for the credibility of agency scientific products, the public
lacked a consistent way to determine when an important scientific information product is
being developed by an agency, the type of peer review planned for that product, or
whether there would be an opportunity to provide comments and data to the reviewers.

This Bulletin establishes minimum standards for when peer review is required for
scientific information and the types of peer review that should be considered by agencies
in different circumstances. It also establishes a transparent process for public disclosure
of peer review planning, including a web-accessible description of the peer review plan
that the agency has developed for each of its forthcoming influential scientific
disseminations.

LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR THE BULLETIN

This Bulletin is issued under the Information Quality Act and OMB’s general authorities
to oversee the quality of agency information, analyses, and regulatory actions. In the
Information Quality Act, Congress directed OMB to issue guidelines to “provide policy
and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality,
objectivity, utility and integrity of information” disseminated by Federal agencies. Pub.
L. No. 106-554, § 515(a). The Information Quality Act was developed as a supplement
to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq., which requires OMB, among

9

Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Risk Commission
Report, Volume 2, Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making, 1997:103.

6

other things, to “develop and oversee the implementation of policies, principles,
standards, and guidelines to . . . apply to Federal agency dissemination of public
information.” In addition, Executive Order 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Oct. 4, 1993),
establishes that OIRA is “the repository of expertise concerning regulatory issues,” and it
directs OMB to provide guidance to the agencies on regulatory planning. E.O. 12866, §
2(b). The Order also requires that “[e]ach agency shall base its decisions on the best
reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, or other information.” E.O. 12866,
§ 1(b)(7). Finally, OMB has authority in certain circumstances to manage the agencies
under the purview of the President’s Constitutional authority to supervise the unitary
Executive Branch. All of these authorities support this Bulletin.

THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS BULLETIN

This Bulletin addresses peer review of scientific information disseminations that contain
findings or conclusions that represent the official position of one or more agencies of the
federal government.

Section I: Definitions

Section I provides definitions that are central to this Bulletin. Several terms are identical
to or based on those used in OMB’s government-wide information quality guidelines, 67
Fed. Reg. 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et
seq.

The term “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OIRA).

The term “agency” has the same meaning as in the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
§ 3502(1).

7

The term “Information Quality Act” means Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 (Pub.
L. No. 106-554, § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154 (2000)).

The term “dissemination” means agency initiated or sponsored distribution of
information to the public. Dissemination does not include distribution limited to
government employees or agency contractors or grantees; intra- or inter-agency use or
sharing of government information; or responses to requests for agency records under the
Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
Government Performance and Results Act, or similar laws. This definition also excludes
distribution limited to correspondence with individuals or persons, press releases,
archival records, public filings, subpoenas and adjudicative processes. In the context of
this Bulletin, the definition of “dissemination” modifies the definition in OMB’s
government-wide information quality guidelines to address the need for peer review prior
to official dissemination of the information product. Accordingly, under this Bulletin,
“dissemination” also excludes information distributed for peer review in compliance with
this Bulletin or shared confidentially with scientific colleagues, provided that the
distributing agency includes an appropriate and clear disclaimer on the information, as
explained more fully below. Finally, the Bulletin does not directly cover information
supplied to the government by third parties (e.g., studies by private consultants,
companies and private, non-profit organizations, or research institutions such as
universities). However, if an agency plans to disseminate information supplied by a third
party (e.g., using this information as the basis for an agency's factual determination that a
particular behavior causes a disease), the requirements of the Bulletin apply, if the
dissemination is "influential".

In cases where a draft report or other information is released by an agency solely for
purposes of peer review, a question may arise as to whether the draft report constitutes an
official "dissemination" under information-quality guidelines. Section I instructs
agencies to make this clear by presenting the following disclaimer in the report:
“THIS INFORMATION IS DISTRIBUTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREDISSEMINATION PEER REVIEW UNDER APPLICABLE INFORMATION
QUALITY GUIDELINES. IT HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY DISSEMINATED BY

8

[THE AGENCY]. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT AND SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT ANY AGENCY DETERMINATION OR POLICY.”

In cases where the information is highly relevant to specific policy or regulatory
deliberations, this disclaimer shall appear on each page of a draft report.
Agencies also shall discourage state, local, international and private organizations
from using information in draft reports that are undergoing peer review. Draft
influential scientific information presented at scientific meetings or shared
confidentially with colleagues for scientific input prior to peer review shall
include the disclaimer: “THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REPORT
(PRESENTATION) HAVE NOT BEEN FORMALLY DISSEMINATED BY [THE AGENCY]
AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT ANY AGENCY DETERMINATION
OR POLICY.”

An information product is not covered by the Bulletin unless it represents an official view
of one or more departments or agencies of the federal government. Accordingly, for the
purposes of this Bulletin, “dissemination” excludes research produced by governmentfunded scientists (e.g., those supported extramurally or intramurally by federal agencies
or those working in state or local governments with federal support) if that information is
not represented as the views of a department or agency (i.e., they are not official
government disseminations).

For influential scientific information that does not have

the imprimatur of the federal government, scientists employed by the federal government
are required to include in their information product a clear disclaimer that “the findings
and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent
the views of the funding agency.” A similar disclaimer is advised for non-government
employees who publish government-funded research.

For the purposes of the peer review Bulletin, the term “scientific information” means
factual inputs, data, models, analyses, technical information, or scientific assessments
related to such disciplines as the behavioral and social sciences, public health and
medical sciences, life and earth sciences, engineering, or physical sciences. This includes
any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or data, in any medium

9

or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual
forms. This definition includes information that an agency disseminates from a web
page, but does not include the provision of hyperlinks on a web page to information that
others disseminate. This definition excludes opinions, where the agency’s presentation
makes clear that an individual’s opinion, rather than a statement of fact or of the agency’s
findings and conclusions, is being offered.

The term “influential scientific information” means scientific information the agency
reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private sector decisions. In the term “influential scientific
information,” the term "influential" should be interpreted consistently with OMB's
government-wide information quality guidelines and the information quality guidelines
of the agency. Information dissemination can have a significant economic impact even if
it is not part of a rulemaking. For instance, the economic viability of a technology can be
influenced by the government’s characterization of its attributes. Alternatively, the
federal government's assessment of risk can directly or indirectly influence the response
actions of state and local agencies or international bodies.

One type of scientific information is a scientific assessment. For the purposes of this
Bulletin, the term “scientific assessment” means an evaluation of a body of scientific or
technical knowledge, which typically synthesizes multiple factual inputs, data, models,
assumptions, and/or applies best professional judgment to bridge uncertainties in the
available information. These assessments include, but are not limited to, state-of-science
reports; technology assessments; weight-of-evidence analyses; meta-analyses; health,
safety, or ecological risk assessments; toxicological characterizations of substances;
integrated assessment models; hazard determinations; or exposure assessments. Such
assessments often draw upon knowledge from multiple disciplines. Typically, the data
and models used in scientific assessments have already been subject to some form of peer
review (e.g., refereed journal peer review or peer review under Section II of this
Bulletin).

10

Section II: Peer Review of Influential Scientific Information

Section II requires each agency to subject "influential" scientific information to peer
review prior to dissemination. For dissemination of influential scientific information,
Section II provides agencies broad discretion in determining what type of peer review is
appropriate and what procedures should be employed to select appropriate reviewers.
Agencies are directed to chose a peer review mechanism that is adequate, giving due
consideration to the novelty and complexity of the science to be reviewed, the relevance
of the information to decision making, the extent of prior peer reviews, and the expected
benefits and costs of additional review.

The National Academy of Public Administration suggests that the intensity of peer
review should be commensurate with the significance of the information being
disseminated and the likely implications for policy decisions.10 Furthermore, agencies
need to consider tradeoffs between depth of peer review and timeliness.11 More rigorous
peer review is necessary for information that is based on novel methods or presents
complex challenges for interpretation. Furthermore, the need for rigorous peer review is
greater when the information contains precedent-setting methods or models, presents
conclusions that are likely to change prevailing practices, or is likely to affect policy
decisions that have a significant impact.

This tradeoff can be considered in a benefit-cost framework. The costs of peer review
include both the direct costs of the peer review activity and those stemming from
potential delay in government and private actions that can result from peer review. The
benefits of peer review are equally clear: the insights offered by peer reviewers may lead
to policy with more benefits and/or fewer costs. In addition to contributing to strong
science, peer review, if performed fairly and rigorously, can build consensus among
stakeholders and reduce the temptation for courts and legislators to second-guess or
10

National Academy of Public Administration, Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for
EPA, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995:23.
11
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Risk Commission
Report, 1997.

11

overturn agency actions.12 While it will not always be easy for agencies to quantify the
benefits and costs of peer review, agencies are encouraged to approach peer review from
a benefit-cost perspective.

Regardless of the peer review mechanism chosen, agencies should strive to ensure that
their peer review practices are characterized by both scientific integrity and process
integrity. “Scientific integrity,” in the context of peer review, refers to such issues as
“expertise and balance of the panel members; the identification of the scientific issues
and clarity of the charge to the panel; the quality, focus and depth of the discussion of the
issues by the panel; the rationale and supportability of the panel’s findings; and the
accuracy and clarity of the panel report.” “Process integrity” includes such issues as
“transparency and openness, avoidance of real or perceived conflicts of interest, a
workable process for public comment and involvement,” and adherence to defined
procedures.13

When deciding what type of peer review mechanism is appropriate for a specific
information product, agencies will need to consider at least the following issues:
individual versus panel review; timing; scope of the review; selection of reviewers;
disclosure and attribution; public participation; disposition of reviewer comments; and
adequacy of prior peer review.

Individual versus Panel Review

Letter reviews by several experts generally will be more expeditious than convening a
panel of experts. Individual letter reviews are more appropriate when a draft document
covers only one discipline or when premature disclosure of a sensitive report to a public
panel could cause harm to government or private interests.
12

When time and resources

Mark R. Powell, Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process, Resources for the Future,
Washington, D.C., 1999: 148, 176; Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers,
Harvard University Press, Boston, 1990: 242.
13
ILSI Risk Sciences Institute, “Policies and Procedures: Model Peer Review Center of Excellence,” 2002:
4. Available at http://rsi.ilsi.org/file/Policies&Procedures.pdf.

12

warrant, panels are preferable, as they tend to be more deliberative than individual letter
reviews and the reviewers can learn from each other. There are also multi-stage
processes in which confidential letter reviews are conducted prior to release of a draft
document for public notice and comment, followed by a formal panel review. These
more rigorous and expensive processes are particularly valuable for highly complex,
multidisciplinary, and more important documents, especially those that are novel or
precedent-setting.

Timing of Peer Review

As a general rule, it is most useful to consult with peers early in the process of producing
information. For example, in the context of risk assessments, it is valuable to have the
choice of input data and the specification of the model reviewed by peers before the
agency invests time and resources in implementing the model and interpreting the results.
"Early" peer review occurs in time to "focus attention on data inadequacies in time for
corrections.

When an information product is a critical component of rule-making, it is important to
obtain peer review before the agency announces its regulatory options so that any
technical corrections can be made before the agency becomes invested in a specific
approach or the positions of interest groups have hardened. If review occurs too late, it is
unlikely to contribute to the course of a rulemaking. Furthermore, investing in a more
rigorous peer review early in the process “may provide net benefit by reducing the
prospect of challenges to a regulation that later may trigger time consuming and resourcedraining litigation.”14

14

Fred Anderson, Mary Ann Chirba Martin, E Donald Elliott, Cynthia Farina, Ernest Gellhorn, John D.
Graham, C. Boyden Gray, Jeffrey Holmstead, Ronald M. Levin, Lars Noah, Katherine Rhyne, Jonathan
Baert Wiener, "Regulatory Improvement Legislation: Risk Assessment, Cost-Benefit Analysis, and
Judicial Review," Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, Fall 2000, vol. XI (1): 132.

13

Scope of the Review

The “charge” contains the instructions to the peer reviewers regarding the objective of the
peer review and the specific advice sought. The importance of the information, which
shapes the goal of the peer review, influences the charge. For instance, the goal of the
review might be to determine the utility of a body of literature for drawing certain
conclusions about the feasibility of a technology or the safety of a product. In this
context, an agency might ask reviewers to determine the relevance of conclusions drawn
in one context for other contexts (e.g., different exposure conditions or patient
populations).

The charge to the reviewers should be determined in advance of the selection of the
reviewers. In drafting the charge, it is important to remember the strengths and
limitations of peer review. Peer review is most powerful when the charge is specific and
steers the reviewers to specific technical questions while also directing reviewers to offer
a broad evaluation of the overall product.

Uncertainty is inherent in science, and in many cases individual studies do not produce
conclusive evidence. Thus, when an agency generates a scientific assessment, it is
presenting its scientific judgment about the accumulated evidence rather than scientific
fact.15 Specialists attempt to reach a consensus by weighing the accumulated evidence.
Peer reviewers can make an important contribution by distinguishing scientific facts from
professional judgments. Furthermore, where appropriate, reviewers should be asked to
provide advice on the reasonableness of judgments made from the scientific evidence.
However, the charge should make clear that the reviewers are not to provide advice on
the policy (e.g., the amount of uncertainty that is acceptable or the amount of precaution
that should be embedded in an analysis). Such considerations are the purview of the
government.16

15

Mark R. Powell, Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process, Resources for the Future,
Washington, D.C., 1999: 139.

14

The charge should ask that peer reviewers ensure that scientific uncertainties are clearly
identified and characterized. Since not all uncertainties have an equal effect on the
conclusions drawn, reviewers should be asked to ensure that the potential implications of
the uncertainties for the technical conclusions drawn are clear. In addition, peer
reviewers might be asked to consider value-of-information analyses that identify whether
more research is likely to decrease key uncertainties.17 Value-of-information analysis
was suggested for this purpose in the report of the Presidential/Congressional
Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management.18 A description of additional
research that would appreciably influence the conclusions of the assessment can help an
agency assess and target subsequent efforts.

Selection of Reviewers

Expertise. The most important factor in selecting reviewers is expertise: ensuring that
the selected reviewer has the knowledge, experience, and skills necessary to perform the
review. Agencies shall ensure that, in cases where the document being reviewed spans a
variety of scientific disciplines or areas of technical expertise, reviewers who represent
the necessary spectrum of knowledge are chosen. For instance, expertise in applied
mathematics and statistics is essential in the review of models, thereby allowing an audit
of calculations and claims of significance and robustness based on the numeric data.19
For some reviews, evaluation of biological plausibility is as important as statistical
modeling. Agencies shall consider requesting that the public, including scientific and
professional societies, nominate potential reviewers.

16

Ibid.
Granger Morgan and Max Henrion, “The Value of Knowing How Little You Know,” Uncertainty: A
Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge University Press,
1990: 307.
18
Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Risk Commission
Report, 1997, Volume 1: 39, Volume 2: 91.
19
William W. Lowrance, Modern Science and Human Values, Oxford University Press, New York, NY
1985: 86.
17

15

Balance. While expertise is the primary consideration, reviewers should also be selected
to represent a diversity of scientific perspectives relevant to the subject. On most
controversial issues, there exists a range of respected scientific viewpoints regarding
interpretation of the available literature. Inviting reviewers with competing views on the
science may lead to a sharper, more focused peer review. Indeed, as a final layer of
review, some organizations (e.g., the National Academy of Sciences) specifically recruit
reviewers with strong opinions to test the scientific strength and balance of their reports.
The NAS policy on committee composition and balance20 highlights important
considerations associated with perspective, bias, and objectivity.

Independence. In its narrowest sense, independence in a reviewer means that the
reviewer was not involved in producing the draft document to be reviewed. However, for
peer review of some documents, a broader view of independence is necessary to assure
credibility of the process. Reviewers are generally not employed by the agency or office
producing the document. As the National Academy of Sciences has stated, “external
experts often can be more open, frank, and challenging to the status quo than internal
reviewers, who may feel constrained by organizational concerns.”21 The Carnegie
Commission on Science, Technology, and Government notes that “external science
advisory boards serve a critically important function in providing regulatory agencies
with expert advice on a range of issues.”22 However, the choice of reviewers requires a
case-by-case analysis. Reviewers employed by other federal and state agencies may
possess unique or indispensable expertise.

A related issue is whether government-funded scientists in universities and consulting
firms have sufficient independence from the federal agencies that support their work to

20

National Academy of Sciences, “Policy and Procedures on Committee Composition and Balance and
Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports,” May 2003: Available at:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html.
21
National Research Council, Peer Review in Environmental Technology Development Programs: The
Department of Energy’s Office of Science and Technology, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,
1998: 3.
22
Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, Risk and the Environment: Improving
Regulatory Decision Making, Carnegie Commission, New York, 1993: 90.

16

be appropriate peer reviewers for those agencies.23 This concern can be mitigated in
situations where the scientist initiates the hypothesis to be tested or the method to be
developed, which effectively creates a buffer between the scientist and the agency. When
an agency awards grants through a competitive process that includes peer review, the
agency’s potential to influence the scientist’s research is limited. As such, when a
scientist is awarded a government research grant through an investigator-initiated, peerreviewed competition, there generally should be no question as to that scientist's ability to
offer independent scientific advice to the agency on other projects. This contrasts, for
example, to a situation in which a scientist has a consulting or contractual arrangement
with the agency or office sponsoring a peer review. Likewise, when the agency and a
researcher work together (e.g., through a cooperative agreement) to design or implement
a study, there is less independence from the agency. Furthermore, if a scientist has
repeatedly served as a reviewer for the same agency, some may question whether that
scientist is sufficiently independent from the agency to be employed as a peer reviewer
on agency-sponsored projects.

As the foregoing suggests, independence poses a complex set of questions that must be
considered by agencies when peer reviewers are selected. In general, agencies shall
make an effort to rotate peer review responsibilities across the available pool of qualified
reviewers, recognizing that in some cases repeated service by the same reviewer is
needed because of essential expertise.

Some agencies have built entire organizations to provide independent scientific advice
while other agencies tend to employ ad hoc scientific panels on specific issues. Respect
for the independence of reviewers may be enhanced if an agency collects names of
potential reviewers (based on considerations of expertise and reputation for objectivity)
from the public, including scientific or professional societies. The Department of
Energy’s use of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers to identify potential peer
reviewers from a variety of different scientific societies provides an example of how

23

Lars Noah, “Scientific ‘Republicanism’: Expert Peer Review and the Quest for Regulatory Deliberation,
Emory Law Journal, Atlanta, Fall 2000:1066.

17

professional societies can assist in the development of an independent peer review
panel.24

Conflict of Interest. The National Academy of Sciences defines “conflict of interest” as
any financial or other interest that conflicts with the service of an individual on the
review panel because it could impair the individual’s objectivity or could create an unfair
competitive advantage for a person or organization.25 This standard provides a useful
benchmark for agencies to consider in selecting peer reviewers. Agencies shall make a
special effort to examine prospective reviewers’ potential financial conflicts, including
significant investments, consulting arrangements, employer affiliations and
grants/contracts. Financial ties of potential reviewers to regulated entities (e.g.,
businesses), other stakeholders, and regulatory agencies shall be scrutinized when the
information being reviewed is likely to be relevant to regulatory policy. The inquiry into
potential conflicts goes beyond financial investments and business relationships and
includes work as an expert witness, consulting arrangements, honoraria and sources of
grants and contracts. To evaluate any real or perceived conflicts of interest with potential
reviewers and questions regarding the independence of reviewers, agencies are referred to
federal ethics requirements, applicable standards issued by the Office of Government
Ethics, and the prevailing practices of the National Academy of Sciences. Specifically,
peer reviewers who are federal employees (including special government employees) are
subject to federal requirements governing conflicts of interest. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 208;
5 C.F.R. Part 2635 (2004). With respect to reviewers who are not federal employees,
agencies shall adopt or adapt the NAS policy for committee selection with respect to
evaluating conflicts of interest.26 Both the NAS and the federal government recognize
that under certain circumstances some conflict may be unavoidable in order to obtain the
necessary expertise. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(3); 5 U.S.C. App. § 15 (governing
NAS committees). To improve the transparency of the process, when an agency
24

American Society for Mechanical Engineers, Assessment of Technologies Supported by the Office of
Science and Technology, Department of Energy: Results of the Peer Review for Fiscal Year 2002, ASME
Technical Publishing, Danvers, MA, 2003.
25
National Academy of Sciences, “Policy and Procedures on Committee Composition and Balance and
Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports,” May 2003: Available at:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html.

18

determines that it is necessary to use a reviewer with a real or perceived conflict of
interest, the agency should consider publicly disclosing those conflicts. In such
situations, the agency shall inform potential reviewers of such disclosure at the time they
are recruited.

Disclosure and Attribution: Anonymous versus Identified

Peer reviewers must have a clear understanding of how their comments will be conveyed
to the authors of the document and to the public. When peer review of government
reports is considered, the case for transparency is stronger, particularly when the report
addresses an issue with significant ramifications for the public and private sectors. The
public may not have confidence in the peer review process when the names and
affiliations of the peer reviewers are unknown. Without access to the comments of
reviewers, the public is incapable of determining whether the government has seriously
considered the comments of reviewers and made appropriate revisions. Disclosure of the
slate of reviewers and the substance of their comments can strengthen public confidence
in the peer review process. It is common at many journals and research funding agencies
to disclose annually the slate of reviewers. Moreover, the National Academy of Sciences
now discloses the names of its peer reviewers, without disclosing the substance of their
comments. The science advisory committees to regulatory agencies typically disclose at
least a summary of the comments of reviewers as well as their names and affiliations.

For agency-sponsored peer review conducted under Sections II and III, this Bulletin
strikes a compromise by requiring disclosure of the identity of the reviewers, but not
public attribution of specific comments to specific reviewers. The agency has
considerable discretion in the implementation of this compromise (e.g., summarizing the
views of reviewers as a group or disclosing individual reviewer comments without
attribution). Whatever approach is employed, the agency must inform reviewers in
advance of how it intends to address this issue. Information about a reviewer retrieved
from a record filed by the reviewer's name or other identifier may be disclosed only as
26

Ibid.

19

permitted by the conditions of disclosure enumerated in the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a
as amended, and as interpreted in OMB implementing guidance, 40 Fed. Reg. 28,948
(July 9, 1975).

Public Participation

Public comments can be important in shaping expert deliberations. Agencies may decide
that peer review should precede an opportunity for public comment to ensure that the
public receives the most scientifically strong product (rather than one that may change
substantially as a result of peer reviewer suggestions). However, there are situations in
which public participation in peer review is an important aspect of obtaining a highquality product through a credible process. Agencies, however, should avoid openended comment periods, which may delay completion of peer reviews and complicate the
completion of the final work product.

Public participation can take a variety of forms, including opportunities to provide oral
comments before a peer review panel or requests to provide written comments to the peer
reviewers. Another option is for agencies to publish a “request for comment” or other
notice in which they solicit public comment before a panel of peer reviewers performs its
work.

Disposition of Reviewer Comments

A peer review is considered completed once the agency considers and addresses the
reviewers’ comments. All reviewer comments should be given consideration and be
incorporated where relevant and valid. For instance, in the context of risk assessments,
the National Academy of Sciences recommends that peer review include a written
evaluation made available for public inspection.27 In cases where there is a public panel,

27

National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1983.

20

the agency should plan publication of the peer review report(s) and the agency’s response
to peer reviewer comments.

In addition, the credibility of the final scientific report is likely to be enhanced if the
public understands how the agency addressed the specific concerns raised by the peer
reviewers. Accordingly, agencies should consider preparing a written response to the
peer review report explaining: the agency's agreement or disagreement, the actions the
agency has undertaken or will undertake in response to the report, and (if applicable) the
reasons the agency believes those actions satisfy any key concerns or recommendations
in the report.

Adequacy of Prior Peer Review

In light of the broad range of information covered by Section II, agencies are directed to
choose a peer review mechanism that is adequate, giving due consideration to the novelty
and complexity of the science to be reviewed, the relevance of the information to
decision making, the extent of prior peer reviews, and the expected benefits and costs of
additional review.

Publication in a refereed scientific journal may mean that adequate peer review has been
performed. However, the intensity of peer review is highly variable across journals.
There will be cases in which an agency determines that a more rigorous or transparent
review process is necessary. For instance, an agency may determine a particular journal
review process did not address questions (e.g., the extent of uncertainty inherent in a
finding) that the agency determines should be addressed before disseminating that
information. As such, prior peer review and publication is not by itself sufficient grounds
for determining that no further review is necessary.

21

Section III: Peer Review of Highly Influential Scientific Assessments

Whereas Section II leaves most of the considerations regarding the form of the peer
review to the agency’s discretion, Section III requires a more rigorous form of peer
review for highly influential scientific assessments. The requirements of Section II of this
Bulletin apply to Section III, but Section III has some additional requirements, which are
discussed below. In planning a peer review under Section III, agencies typically will
have to devote greater resources and attention to the issues discussed in Section II, i.e.,
individual versus panel review; timing; scope of the review; selection of reviewers;
disclosure and attribution; public participation; and disposition of reviewer comments.

A scientific assessment is considered "highly influential" if the agency or the OIRA
Administrator determines that the dissemination could have a potential impact of more
than $500 million in any one year on either the public or private sector or that the
dissemination is novel, controversial, or precedent-setting, or has significant interagency
interest. One of the ways information can exert economic impact is through the costs or
benefits of a regulation based on the disseminated information. The qualitative aspect of
this definition may be most useful in cases where it is difficult for an agency to predict
the potential economic effect of dissemination. In the context of this Bulletin, it may be
either the approach used in the assessment or the interpretation of the information itself
that is novel or precedent-setting. Peer review can be valuable in establishing the bounds
of the scientific debate when methods or interpretations are a source of controversy
among interested parties. If information is covered by Section III, an agency is required
to adhere to the peer review procedures specified in Section III.

Section III (2) clarifies that the principal findings, conclusions and recommendations in
official reports of the National Academy of Sciences that fall under this Section are
generally presumed not to require additional peer review. All other highly influential
scientific assessments require a review that meets the requirements of Section III of this
Bulletin.

22

With regard to the selection of reviewers, Section III(3)(a) emphasizes consideration of
expertise and balance. As discussed in Section II, expertise refers to the required
knowledge, experience and skills required to perform the review whereas balance refers
to the need for diversity in scientific perspective and disciplines. We emphasize that the
term "balance" here refers not to balancing of stakeholder or political interests but rather
to a broad and diverse representation of respected perspectives and intellectual traditions
within the scientific community, as discussed in the NAS policy on committee
composition and balance.28

Section III(3)(b) instructs agencies to consider barring participation by scientists with a
conflict of interest. The conflict of interest standards for Sections II and III of the Bulletin
are identical. As discussed under Section II, those peer reviewers who are federal
employees, including Special Government Employees, are subject to applicable statutory
and regulatory standards for federal employees. For non-government employees,
agencies shall adopt or adapt the NAS policy for committee member selection with
respect to evaluating conflicts of interest.

Section III(3)(c) instructs agencies to ensure that reviewers are independent of the agency
sponsoring the review. Scientists employed by the sponsoring agency are not permitted
to serve as reviewers for highly influential scientific assessments. This does not preclude
Special Government Employees, such as academics appointed to advisory committees,
from serving as peer reviewers. The only exception to this ban would be the rare
situation in which a scientist from a different agency of a Cabinet-level department than
the agency that is disseminating the scientific assessment has expertise, experience and
skills that are essential but cannot be obtained elsewhere. In evaluating the need for this
exception, agencies shall use the NAS criteria for assessing the appropriateness of using
employees of sponsors (e.g., the government scientist must not have had any part in the
development or prior review of the scientific information and must not hold a position of
managerial or policy responsibility).
28

National Academy of Sciences, “Policy and Procedures on Committee Composition and Balance and
Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports,” May 2003: Available at:

23

We also considered whether a reviewer can be independent of the agency if that reviewer
receives a substantial amount of research funding from the agency sponsoring the review.
Research grants that were awarded to the scientist based on investigator-initiated,
competitive, peer-reviewed proposals do not generally raise issues of independence.
However, significant consulting and contractual relationships with the agency may raise
issues of independence or conflict, depending upon the situation.

Section III(3)(d) addresses concerns regarding repeated use of the same reviewer in
multiple assessments. Such repeated use should be avoided unless a particular
reviewer’s expertise is essential. Agencies should rotate membership across the available
pool of qualified reviewers. Similarly, when using standing panels of scientific advisors,
it is suggested that the agency rotate membership among qualified scientists in order to
obtain fresh perspectives and reinforce the reality and perception of independence from
the agency.

Section III(4) requires agencies to provide reviewers with sufficient background
information, including access to key studies, data and models, to perform their role as
peer reviewers. In this respect, the peer review envisioned in Section III is more rigorous
than some forms of journal peer review, where the reviewer is often not provided access
to underlying data or models. Reviewers shall be informed of applicable access,
objectivity, reproducibility and other quality standards under federal information quality
laws.

Section III(5) addresses opportunity for public participation in peer review, and provides
that the agency shall, wherever possible, provide for public participation. In some cases,
an assessment may be so sensitive that it is critical that the agency’s assessment achieve a
high level of quality before it is publicized. In those situations, a rigorous yet
confidential peer review process may be appropriate, prior to public release of the
assessment. If an agency decides to make a draft assessment publicly available at the
http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html.

24

onset of a peer review process, the agency shall, whenever possible, provide a vehicle for
the public to provide written comments, make an oral presentation before the peer
reviewers, or both. When written public comments are received, the agency shall ensure
that peer reviewers receive copies of comments that address significant scientific issues
with ample time to consider them in their review. To avoid undue delay of agency
activities, the agency shall specify time limits for public participation throughout the peer
review process.

Section III(6) requires that agencies instruct reviewers to prepare a peer review report
that describes the nature and scope of their review and their findings and conclusions.
The report shall disclose the name of each peer reviewer and a brief description of his or
her organizational affiliation, credentials and relevant experiences. The peer review
report should either summarize the views of the group as a whole (including any
dissenting views) or include a verbatim copy of the comments of the individual reviewers
(with or without attribution of specific views to specific names). The agency shall also
prepare a written response to the peer review report, indicating whether the agency agrees
with the reviewers and what actions the agency has taken or plans to take to address the
points made by reviewers. The agency is required to disseminate the peer review report
and the agency's response to the report on the agency's website, including all the
materials related to the peer review such as the charge statement, peer review report, and
agency response to the review. If the scientific information is used to support a final rule
then, where practicable, the peer review report shall be made available to the public with
enough time for the public to consider the implications of the peer review report for the
rule being considered.

Section III(7) authorizes but does not require an agency to commission an entity
independent of the agency to select peer reviewers and/or manage the peer review
process in accordance with this Bulletin. The entity may be a scientific or professional
society, a firm specializing in peer review, or a non-profit organization with experience in
peer review.

25

Section IV: Alternative Procedures

Peer review as described in this Bulletin is only one of many procedures that agencies
can employ to ensure an appropriate degree of pre-dissemination quality of influential
scientific information. For example, Congress has assigned the NAS a special role in
advising the federal government on scientific and technical issues. The procedures of the
NAS are generally quite rigorous, and thus agencies should presume that major findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of NAS reports meet the performance standards of
this Bulletin.

As an alternative to complying with Sections II and III of this Bulletin, an agency may
instead (1) rely on scientific information produced by the National Academy of
Sciences, (2) commission the National Academy of Sciences to peer review an agency
draft scientific information product, or (3) employ an alternative procedure or set of
procedures, specifically approved by the OIRA Administrator in consultation with the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), that ensures that the scientific
information product meets applicable information-quality standards.

An example of an alternative procedure is to commission a respected third party other
than the NAS (e.g., the Health Effects Institute or the National Commission on Radiation
Protection and Measurement) to conduct an assessment or series of related assessments.
Another example of an alternative set of procedures is the three-part process used by the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) to generate scientific guidance. Under that process, a
scientific proposal or white paper is generated by a working group composed of external,
independent scientific experts; that paper is then forwarded to a separate external
scientific council, which then makes recommendations to the agency. The agency, in
turn, decides whether to adopt and/or modify the proposal. For large science agencies
that have diverse research portfolios and do not have significant regulatory
responsibilities, such as NIH, an acceptable alternative would be to allow scientists from
one part of the agency (for example, an NIH institute) to participate in the review of
documents prepared by another part of the agency, as long as the head of the agency

26

confirms in writing that each of the reviewers meets the NAS criteria relating to
the appropriateness of using employees of sponsors (e.g., the government scientist must
not have had any part in the development or prior review of the scientific information
and must not hold a position of managerial or policy responsibility). The purpose of
Section IV is to encourage these types of innovation in the methods used to ensure predissemination quality control of influential scientific information.

The mere existence of a public comment process (e.g., notice-and-comment procedures
under the Administrative Procedure Act) does not constitute adequate peer review or an
“alternative process,” because it does not assure that qualified, impartial specialists in
relevant fields have performed a critical evaluation of the agency's draft product.29

Section V: Peer Review Planning

Section V requires agencies to begin a systematic process of peer review planning for
influential scientific information (including highly influential scientific assessments)
that the agency plans to disseminate in the foreseeable future. A key feature of this
planning process is a web-accessible listing of forthcoming influential scientific
disseminations (i.e., an agenda) that is regularly updated by the agency. By making
these plans publicly available, agencies will be able to gauge the extent of public interest
in the peer review process for influential scientific information, including highly
influential scientific assessments. These web-accessible agendas can also be used by the
public to monitor agency compliance with this Bulletin.

Each entry on the agenda shall include a preliminary title of the planned report, a short
paragraph describing the subject and purpose of the planned report, and an agency
contact person. The agency shall provide its prediction regarding whether the
dissemination will be “influential scientific information” or a “highly influential scientific
assessment,” as the designation can influence the type of peer review to be undertaken.

29

William W. Lowrance, Modern Science and Human Values, Oxford University Press, New York, NY
1985: 86.

27

The agency shall discuss the timing of the peer review, as well as the use of any deferrals.
Agencies shall include entries in the agenda for influential scientific information,
including highly influential scientific assessments, for which the Bulletin’s requirements
have been deferred or waived. If the agency, in consultation with the OIRA
Administrator, has determined that it is appropriate to use a Section IV “alternative
procedure” for a specific dissemination, a description of that alternative procedure shall
be included in the agenda.

Furthermore, for each entry on the agenda, the agency shall describe the peer review
plan. Each peer review plan shall include: (i) a paragraph including the title, subject and
purpose of the planned report, as well as an agency contact to whom inquiries may be
directed to learn the specifics of the plan; (ii) whether the dissemination is likely to be
influential scientific information or a highly influential scientific assessment; (iii) the
timing of the review (including deferrals); (iv) whether the review will be conducted
through a panel or individual letters (or whether an alternative procedure will be
exercised); (v) whether there will be opportunities for the public to comment on the work
product to be peer reviewed, and if so, how and when these opportunities will be
provided; (vi) whether the agency will provide significant and relevant public comments
to the peer reviewers before they conduct their review; (vii) the anticipated number of
reviewers (3 or fewer; 4-10; or more than 10); (viii) a succinct description of the primary
disciplines or expertise needed in the review; (ix) whether reviewers will be selected by
the agency or by a designated outside organization; and (x) whether the public, including
scientific or professional societies, will be asked to nominate potential peer reviewers.
The agency shall provide a link from the agenda to each document made public pursuant
to this Bulletin. Agencies shall link their peer review agendas to the U.S. Government’s
official web portal: firstgov at http://www.FirstGov.gov

Agencies should update their peer review agendas at least every six months. However, in
some cases -- particularly for highly influential scientific assessments and other
particularly important information -- more frequent updates of existing entries on the
agenda, or the addition of new entries to the agenda, may be warranted. When new

28

entries are added to the agenda of forthcoming reports and other information, the public
should be provided with sufficient time to comment on the agency's peer review plan for
that report or product. Agencies shall consider public comments on the peer review plan.
Agencies are encouraged to offer a listserve or similar mechanism for members of the
public who would like to be notified by email each time an agency’s peer review agenda
has been updated.

The peer review planning requirements of this Bulletin are designed to be implemented in
phases. Specifically, the planning requirements of the Bulletin will go into effect for
documents subject to Section III of the Bulletin (highly influential scientific assessments)
six months after publication. However, the planning requirements for documents subject
to Section II of the Bulletin do not go into effect until one year after publication. It is
expected that agency experience with the planning requirements of the Bulletin for the
smaller scope of documents encompassed in Section III will be used to inform
implementation of these planning requirements for the larger scope of documents covered
under Section II.

Section VI: Annual Report

Each agency shall prepare an annual report that summarizes key decisions made pursuant
to this Bulletin. In particular, each agency should provide to OIRA the following: 1) the
number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin (i.e., for influential scientific
information and highly influential scientific assessments); 2) the number of times
alternative procedures were invoked; 3) the number of times waivers or deferrals were
invoked (and in the case of deferrals, the length of time elapsed between the deferral and
the peer review); 4) any decision to appoint a reviewer pursuant to any exception to the
applicable independence or conflict of interest standards of the Bulletin, including
determinations by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary pursuant to Section III (3) (c); 5) the
number of peer review panels that were conducted in public and the number that allowed
public comment; 6) the number of public comments provided on the agency’s peer

29

review plans; and 7) the number of peer reviewers that the agency used that were
recommended by professional societies.

Section VII: Certification in the Administrative Record

If an agency relies on influential scientific information or a highly influential scientific
assessment subject to the requirements of this Bulletin in support of a regulatory action,
the agency shall include in the administrative record for that action a certification that
explains how the agency has complied with the requirements of this Bulletin and the
Information Quality Act. Relevant materials are to be placed in the administrative
record.

Section VIII: Safeguards, Deferrals, and Waivers

Section VIII recognizes that individuals serving as peer reviewers have a privacy interest
in information about themselves that the government maintains and retrieves by name or
identifier from a system of records. To the extent information about a reviewer (name,
credential, affiliation) will be disclosed along with his/her comments or analysis, the
agency must comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as
amended, and OMB Circular A-130, Appendix I, 61 Fed. Reg. 6428 (February 20, 1996)
to establish appropriate routine uses in a published System of Records Notice.
Furthermore, the peer review must be conducted in a manner that respects confidential
business information as well as intellectual property.

Section VIII also allows for a deferral or waiver of the requirements of the Bulletin where
necessary. Specifically, the agency head may waive or defer some or all of the peer
review requirements of Sections II or III of this Bulletin if there is a compelling rationale
for waiver or deferral. Waivers will seldom be warranted under this provision because
the Bulletin already provides significant safety valves, such as: the exemptions provided
in Section IX, including the exemption for time-sensitive health and safety information;

30

the authorization for alternative procedures in Section IV; and the overall flexibility
provided for peer reviews of influential scientific information under Section II.
Nonetheless, we have included this waiver and deferral provision to ensure needed
flexibility in unusual and compelling situations not otherwise covered by the exemptions
to the Bulletin, such as situations where unavoidable legal deadlines prevent full
compliance with the Bulletin before information is disseminated. Deadlines found in
consent decrees agreed to by agencies after the Bulletin is issued will not ordinarily
warrant waiver of the Bulletin’s requirements because those deadlines should be
negotiated to permit time for all required procedures, including peer review. In addition,
when an agency is unavoidably up against a deadline, deferral of some or all
requirements of the Bulletin (as opposed to outright waiver of all of them) is the most
appropriate accommodation between the need to satisfy immovable deadlines and the
need to undertake proper peer review. If the agency head defers any of the peer review
requirements prior to dissemination, peer review should be conducted as soon as
practicable thereafter.

Section IX: Exemptions

There are a variety of situations where agencies need not conduct peer review under this
Bulletin. These include, for example, disseminations of sensitive information related to
certain national security, foreign affairs, or negotiations involving international treaties
and trade where compliance with this Bulletin would interfere with the need for secrecy
or promptness.

This Bulletin does not cover official disseminations that arise in adjudications and permit
proceedings, unless the agency determines that peer review is practical and appropriate
and that the influential dissemination is scientifically or technically novel (i.e., a major
change in accepted practice) or likely to have precedent-setting influence on future
adjudications or permit proceedings. This exclusion is intended to cover, among other
things, licensing, approval and registration processes for specific product development
activities as well as site-specific activities. The determination as to whether peer review

31

is practical and appropriate is left to the discretion of the agency. While this Bulletin is
not broadly applicable to adjudications, agencies are encouraged to hold peer reviews of
scientific assessments supporting adjudications to the same technical standards as peer
reviews covered by the Bulletin, including transparency and disclosure of the data and
models underlying the assessments. Protections apply to confidential business
information.

The Bulletin does not cover time-sensitive health and safety disseminations, for example,
a dissemination based primarily on data from a recent clinical trial that was adequately
peer reviewed before the trial began. For this purpose, “health” includes public health, or
plant or animal infectious diseases.

This Bulletin covers original data and formal analytic models used by agencies in
Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs). However, the RIA documents themselves are
already reviewed through an interagency review process under E.O. 12866 that involves
application of the principles and methods defined in OMB Circular A-4. In that respect,
RIAs are excluded from coverage by this Bulletin, although agencies are encouraged to
have RIAs reviewed by peers within the government for adequacy and completeness.

The Bulletin does not cover accounting, budget, actuarial, and financial information
including that which is generated or used by agencies that focus on interest rates,
banking, currency, securities, commodities, futures, or taxes.

Routine statistical information released by federal statistical agencies (e.g., periodic
demographic and economic statistics) and analyses of these data to compute standard
indicators and trends (e.g., unemployment and poverty rates) is excluded from this
Bulletin.

The Bulletin does not cover information disseminated in connection with routine rules
that materially alter entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof.

32

If information is disseminated pursuant to an exemption to this Bulletin, subsequent
disseminations are not automatically exempted. For example, if influential scientific
information is first disseminated in the course of an exempt agency adjudication, but is
later disseminated in the context of a non-exempt rulemaking, the subsequent
dissemination will be subject to the requirements of this Bulletin even though the first
dissemination was not.

Section X: OIRA and OSTP Responsibilities

OIRA, in consultation with OSTP, is responsible for overseeing agency implementation
of this Bulletin. In order to foster learning about peer review practices across agencies,
OIRA and OSTP shall form an interagency workgroup on peer review that meets
regularly, discusses progress and challenges, and recommends improvements to peer
review practices.

Section XI: Effective Date and Existing Law

The requirements of this Bulletin, with the exception of Section V, apply to information
disseminated on or after six months after publication of this Bulletin. However, the
Bulletin does not apply to information that is already being addressed by an agencyinitiated peer review process (e.g., a draft is already being reviewed by a formal scientific
advisory committee established by the agency). An existing peer review mechanism
mandated by law should be implemented by the agency in a manner as consistent as
possible with the practices and procedures outlined in this Bulletin. The requirements of
Section V apply to “highly influential scientific assessments,” as designated in Section III
of the Bulletin, within six months of publication of the final Bulletin. The requirements
in Section V apply to documents subject to Section II of the Bulletin one year after
publication of the final Bulletin.

33

Section XII: Judicial Review

This Bulletin is intended to improve the internal management of the Executive Branch
and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its agencies or
other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

Bulletin for Peer Review
I.

Definitions.

For purposes of this Bulletin -1. the term “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OIRA);
2. the term “agency” has the same meaning as in the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. § 3502(1);
3. the term “dissemination” means agency initiated or sponsored distribution of
information to the public (see 5 C.F.R. 1320.3(d) (definition of “Conduct or Sponsor”)).
Dissemination does not include distribution limited to government employees or agency
contractors or grantees; intra- or inter-agency use or sharing of government information;
or responses to requests for agency records under the Freedom of Information Act, the
Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Government Performance and
Results Act or similar law. This definition also excludes distribution limited to
correspondence with individuals or persons, press releases, archival records, public
filings, subpoenas and adjudicative processes. The term “dissemination” also excludes
information distributed for peer review in compliance with this Bulletin, provided that the
distributing agency includes a clear disclaimer on the information as follows: “THIS
INFORMATION IS DISTRIBUTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREDISSEMINATION PEER REVIEW UNDER APPLICABLE INFORMATION
QUALITY GUIDELINES. IT HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY DISSEMINATED BY
[THE AGENCY]. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT AND SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT ANY AGENCY DETERMINATION OR POLICY.”
For the purposes of this Bulletin, “dissemination” excludes research produced by
government-funded scientists (e.g., those supported extramurally or intramurally by
federal agencies or those working in state or local governments with federal support) if
that information does not represent the views of an agency. To qualify for this
exemption, the information should display a clear disclaimer that “the findings and
conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the
views of the funding agency”;
4. the term “Information Quality Act” means Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 (Pub.
L. No. 106-554, § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154 (2000));
5. the term “scientific information” means factual inputs, data, models, analyses,
technical information, or scientific assessments based on the behavioral and social

34

sciences, public health and medical sciences, life and earth sciences, engineering, or
physical sciences. This includes any communication or representation of knowledge such
as facts or data, in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic,
cartographic, narrative, or audiovisual forms. This definition includes information that an
agency disseminates from a web page, but does not include the provision of hyperlinks to
information that others disseminate. This definition does not include opinions, where the
agency’s presentation makes clear that what is being offered is someone’s opinion rather
than fact or the agency’s views;
6. the term “influential scientific information” means scientific information the agency
reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private sector decisions; and
7. the term “scientific assessment” means an evaluation of a body of scientific or
technical knowledge, which typically synthesizes multiple factual inputs, data, models,
assumptions, and/or applies best professional judgment to bridge uncertainties in the
available information. These assessments include, but are not limited to, state-of-science
reports; technology assessments; weight-of-evidence analyses; meta-analyses; health,
safety, or ecological risk assessments; toxicological characterizations of substances;
integrated assessment models; hazard determinations; or exposure assessments.
II.

Peer Review of Influential Scientific Information.

1. In General: To the extent permitted by law, each agency shall conduct a peer review
on all influential scientific information that the agency intends to disseminate. Peer
reviewers shall be charged with reviewing scientific and technical matters, leaving policy
determinations for the agency. Reviewers shall be informed of applicable access,
objectivity, reproducibility and other quality standards under the federal laws governing
information access and quality.
2. Adequacy of Prior Peer Review: For information subject to this section of the
Bulletin, agencies need not have further peer review conducted on information that has
already been subjected to adequate peer review. In determining whether prior peer review
is adequate, agencies shall give due consideration to the novelty and complexity of the
science to be reviewed, the importance of the information to decision making, the extent
of prior peer reviews, and the expected benefits and costs of additional review. Principal
findings, conclusions and recommendations in official reports of the National Academy
of Sciences are generally presumed to have been adequately peer reviewed.
3. Selection of Reviewers:
a. Expertise and Balance: Peer reviewers shall be selected based on expertise,
experience and skills, including specialists from multiple disciplines, as necessary. The
group of reviewers shall be sufficiently broad and diverse to fairly represent the relevant
scientific and technical perspectives and fields of knowledge. Agencies shall consider
requesting that the public, including scientific and professional societies, nominate
potential reviewers.
b. Conflicts: The agency – or the entity selecting the peer reviewers – shall (i)
ensure that those reviewers serving as federal employees (including special government
employees) comply with applicable federal ethics requirements; (ii) in selecting peer
reviewers who are not government employees, adopt or adapt the National Academy of

35

Sciences policy for committee selection with respect to evaluating the potential for
conflicts (e.g., those arising from investments; agency, employer, and business
affiliations; grants, contracts and consulting income). For scientific information relevant
to specific regulations, the agency shall examine a reviewer’s financial ties to regulated
entities (e.g., businesses), other stakeholders, and the agency.
c. Independence: Peer reviewers shall not have participated in development of the
work product. Agencies are encouraged to rotate membership on standing panels across
the pool of qualified reviewers. Research grants that were awarded to scientists based on
investigator-initiated, competitive, peer-reviewed proposals generally do not raise issues
as to independence or conflicts.
4. Choice of Peer Review Mechanism: The choice of a peer review mechanism (for
example, letter reviews or ad hoc panels) for influential scientific information shall be
based on the novelty and complexity of the information to be reviewed, the importance of
the information to decision making, the extent of prior peer review, and the expected
benefits and costs of review, as well as the factors regarding transparency described in
II(5).
5. Transparency: The agency -- or entity managing the peer review -- shall instruct peer
reviewers to prepare a report that describes the nature of their review and their findings
and conclusions. The peer review report shall either (a) include a verbatim copy of each
reviewer's comments (either with or without specific attributions) or (b) represent the
views of the group as a whole, including any disparate and dissenting views. The agency
shall disclose the names of the reviewers and their organizational affiliations in the
report. Reviewers shall be notified in advance regarding the extent of disclosure and
attribution planned by the agency. The agency shall disseminate the final peer review
report on the agency's website along with all materials related to the peer review (any
charge statement, the peer review report, and any agency response). The peer review
report shall be discussed in the preamble to any related rulemaking and included in the
administrative record for any related agency action.
6. Management of Peer Review Process and Reviewer Selection: The agency may
commission independent entities to manage the peer review process, including the
selection of peer reviewers, in accordance with this Bulletin.

III.

Additional Peer Review Requirements for Highly Influential Scientific
Assessments.

1. Applicability: This section applies to influential scientific information that the
agency or the Administrator determines to be a scientific assessment that:
(i) could have a potential impact of more than $500 million in any year, or
(ii) is novel, controversial, or precedent-setting or has significant interagency
interest.
2. In General: To the extent permitted by law, each agency shall conduct peer reviews
on all information subject to this Section. The peer reviews shall satisfy the requirements
of Section II of this Bulletin, as well as the additional requirements found in this Section.
Principal findings, conclusions and recommendations in official reports of the National

36

Academy of Sciences that fall under this Section are generally presumed not to require
additional peer review.
3. Selection of Reviewers:
a. Expertise and Balance: Peer reviewers shall be selected based on expertise,
experience and skills, including specialists from multiple disciplines, as necessary. The
group of reviewers shall be sufficiently broad and diverse to fairly represent the relevant
scientific and technical perspectives and fields of knowledge. Agencies shall consider
requesting that the public, including scientific and professional societies, nominate
potential reviewers.
b. Conflicts: The agency – or the entity selecting the peer reviewers – shall (i)
ensure that those reviewers serving as federal employees (including special government
employees) comply with applicable federal ethics requirements; (ii) in selecting peer
reviewers who are not government employees, adopt or adapt the National Academy of
Sciences’ policy for committee selection with respect to evaluating the potential for
conflicts (e.g., those arising from investments; agency, employer, and business
affiliations; grants, contracts and consulting income). For scientific assessments relevant
to specific regulations, a reviewer’s financial ties to regulated entities (e.g., businesses),
other stakeholders, and the agency shall be examined.
c. Independence: In addition to the requirements of Section II (3)(c), which shall
apply to all reviews conducted under Section III, the agency -- or entity selecting the
reviewers -- shall bar participation of scientists employed by the sponsoring
agency unless the reviewer is employed only for the purpose of conducting the peer
review (i.e., special government employees). The only exception to this bar would be the
rare case where the agency determines, using the criteria developed by NAS for
evaluating use of “employees of sponsors,” that a premier government scientist is (a) not
in a position of management or policy responsibility and (b) possesses essential expertise
that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Furthermore, to be eligible for this exception, the
scientist must be employed by a different agency of the Cabinet-level department than the
agency that is disseminating the scientific information. The agency’s determination shall
be documented in writing and approved, on a non-delegable basis, by the Secretary or
Deputy Secretary of the department prior to the scientist’s appointment.
d. Rotation: Agencies shall avoid repeated use of the same reviewer on multiple
assessments unless his or her participation is essential and cannot be obtained elsewhere.
4. Information Access: The agency -- or entity managing the peer review -- shall
provide the reviewers with sufficient information -- including background information
about key studies or models -- to enable them to understand the data, analytic procedures,
and assumptions used to support the key findings or conclusions of the draft assessment.
5. Opportunity for Public Participation: Whenever feasible and appropriate, the agency
shall make the draft scientific assessment available to the public for comment at the same
time it is submitted for peer review (or during the peer review process) and sponsor a
public meeting where oral presentations on scientific issues can be made to the peer
reviewers by interested members of the public. When employing a public comment
process as part of the peer review, the agency shall, whenever practical, provide peer
reviewers with access to public comments that address significant scientific or technical
issues. To ensure that public participation does not unduly delay agency activities, the

37

agency shall clearly specify time limits for public participation throughout the peer
review process.
6. Transparency: In addition to the requirements specified in II(5), which shall apply to
all reviews conducted under Section III, the peer review report shall include the charge to
the reviewers and a short paragraph on both the credentials and relevant experiences of
each peer reviewer. The agency shall prepare a written response to the peer review report
explaining (a) the agency's agreement or disagreement with the views expressed in the
report, (b) the actions the agency has undertaken or will undertake in response to the
report, and (c) the reasons the agency believes those actions satisfy the key concerns
stated in the report (if applicable). The agency shall disseminate its response to the peer
review report on the agency's website with the related material specified in Section II(5).
7. Management of Peer Review Process and Reviewer Selection: The agency may
commission independent entities to manage the peer review process, including the
selection of peer reviewers, in accordance with this Bulletin.
IV.

Alternative Procedures.

As an alternative to complying with Sections II and III of this Bulletin, an agency may
instead: (i) rely on the principal findings, conclusions and recommendations of a report
produced by the National Academy of Sciences; (ii) commission the National Academy
of Sciences to peer review an agency’s draft scientific information; or (iii) employ an
alternative scientific procedure or process, specifically approved by the Administrator in
consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), that ensures the
agency’s scientific information satisfies applicable information quality standards. The
alternative procedure(s) may be applied to a designated report or group of reports.
V.

Peer Review Planning.

1. Peer Review Agenda: Each agency shall post on its website, and update at least every
six months, an agenda of peer review plans. The agenda shall describe all planned and
ongoing influential scientific information subject to this Bulletin. The agency shall
provide a link from the agenda to each document that has been made public pursuant to
this Bulletin. Agencies are encouraged to offer a listserve or similar mechanism to alert
interested members of the public when entries are added or updated.
2. Peer Review Plans: For each entry on the agenda the agency shall describe the peer
review plan. Each peer review plan shall include: (i) a paragraph including the title,
subject and purpose of the planned report, as well as an agency contact to whom inquiries
may be directed to learn the specifics of the plan; (ii) whether the dissemination is likely
to be influential scientific information or a highly influential scientific assessment; (iii)
the timing of the review (including deferrals); (iv) whether the review will be conducted
through a panel or individual letters (or whether an alternative procedure will be
employed); (v) whether there will be opportunities for the public to comment on the work
product to be peer reviewed, and if so, how and when these opportunities will be
provided; (vi) whether the agency will provide significant and relevant public comments
to the peer reviewers before they conduct their review; (vii) the anticipated number of
reviewers (3 or fewer; 4-10; or more than 10); (viii) a succinct description of the primary

38

disciplines or expertise needed in the review; (ix) whether reviewers will be selected by
the agency or by a designated outside organization; and (x) whether the public, including
scientific or professional societies, will be asked to nominate potential peer reviewers.
3. Public Comment: Agencies shall establish a mechanism for allowing the public to
comment on the adequacy of the peer review plans. Agencies shall consider public
comments on peer review plans.
VI.

Annual Reports.

Each agency shall provide to OIRA, by December 15 of each year, a summary of the peer
reviews conducted by the agency during the fiscal year. The report should include the
following: 1) the number of peer reviews conducted subject to the Bulletin (i.e., for
influential scientific information and highly influential scientific assessments); 2) the
number of times alternative procedures were invoked; 3) the number of times waivers or
deferrals were invoked (and in the case of deferrals, the length of time elapsed between
the deferral and the peer review); 4) any decision to appoint a reviewer pursuant to any
exception to the applicable independence or conflict of interest standards of the Bulletin,
including determinations by the Secretary pursuant to Section III(3)(c); 5) the number of
peer review panels that were conducted in public and the number that allowed public
comment; 6) the number of public comments provided on the agency’s peer review plans;
and 7) the number of peer reviewers that the agency used that were recommended by
professional societies.

VII.

Certification in the Administrative Record.

If an agency relies on influential scientific information or a highly influential scientific
assessment subject to this Bulletin to support a regulatory action, it shall include in the
administrative record for that action a certification explaining how the agency has
complied with the requirements of this Bulletin and the applicable information quality
guidelines. Relevant materials shall be placed in the administrative record.
VIII. Safeguards, Deferrals, and Waivers.
1. Privacy: To the extent information about a reviewer (name, credentials, affiliation)
will be disclosed along with his/her comments or analysis, the agency shall comply with
the requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 522a as amended, and OMB Circular A130, Appendix I, 61 Fed. Reg. 6428 (February 20, 1996) to establish appropriate routine
uses in a published System of Records Notice.
2. Confidentiality: Peer review shall be conducted in a manner that respects (i)
confidential business information and (ii) intellectual property.
3. Deferral and Waiver: The agency head may waive or defer some or all of the peer
review requirements of Sections II and III of this Bulletin where warranted by a
compelling rationale. If the agency head defers the peer review requirements prior to
dissemination, peer review shall be conducted as soon as practicable.

39

IX.

Exemptions.

Agencies need not have peer review conducted on information that is:
1. related to certain national security, foreign affairs, or negotiations involving
international trade or treaties where compliance with this Bulletin would interfere with
the need for secrecy or promptness;
2. disseminated in the course of an individual agency adjudication or permit proceeding
(including a registration, approval, licensing, site-specific determination), unless the
agency determines that peer review is practical and appropriate and that the influential
dissemination is scientifically or technically novel or likely to have precedent-setting
influence on future adjudications and/or permit proceedings;
3. a health or safety dissemination where the agency determines that the dissemination is
time-sensitive (e.g., findings based primarily on data from a recent clinical trial that was
adequately peer reviewed before the trial began);
4. an agency regulatory impact analysis or regulatory flexibility analysis subject to
interagency review under Executive Order 12866, except for underlying data and
analytical models used;
5. routine statistical information released by federal statistical agencies (e.g., periodic
demographic and economic statistics) and analyses of these data to compute standard
indicators and trends (e.g., unemployment and poverty rates);
6. accounting, budget, actuarial, and financial information, including that which is
generated or used by agencies that focus on interest rates, banking, currency, securities,
commodities, futures, or taxes; or
7. information disseminated in connection with routine rules that materially alter
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof.
X.

Responsibilities of OIRA and OSTP.

OIRA, in consultation with OSTP, shall be responsible for overseeing implementation of
this Bulletin. An interagency group, chaired by OSTP and OIRA, shall meet
periodically to foster better understanding about peer review practices and to assess
progress in implementing this Bulletin.
XI.

Effective Date and Existing Law.

40

The requirements of this Bulletin, with the exception of those in Section V (Peer Review
Planning), apply to information disseminated on or after six months following publication
of this Bulletin, except that they do not apply to information for which an agency has
already provided a draft report and an associated charge to peer reviewers. Any existing
peer review mechanisms mandated by law shall be employed in a manner as consistent as
possible with the practices and procedures laid out herein. The requirements in Section V
apply to “highly influential scientific assessments,” as designated in Section III of this
Bulletin, within six months of publication of this Bulletin. The requirements in Section V
apply to documents subject to Section II of this Bulletin one year after publication of this
Bulletin.
XII.

Judicial Review

This Bulletin is intended to improve the internal management of the executive branch,
and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its agencies or
other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

41