EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

WASHINGTON, D.C. ON, D.C. 20503 

 

 T H E DI R E C T O R 

M-05-03 M-05-03 

December 16, 2004 

MEMORANDUM F MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF DEP R HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES MENTS AND AGENCIES 

FROM: Joshua B. Bolten 

 Director

SUBJECT: Issuance of OMB’s “Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review”

SUBJECT: Issuance of OMB’s “Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review”

OMB has today issued a bulletin applicable to all departments and agencies entitled “Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.” This Bulletin establishes government-wide 

guidance aimed at enhancing the practice of peer review of government science documents. 

Peer review is an important procedure used by the scientific community to ensure that the 

quality of published information. Peer review can increase the quality and credibility of the 

scientific information generated across the federal government. This Bulletin is one aspect 

of a larger OMB effort to improve the quality of the scientific information upon which 

policy decisions are based. 

OMB has today issued a bulletin applicable to all departments and agencies entitled “Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.” This Bulletin establishes government-wide 

guidance aimed at enhancing the practice of peer review of government science documents. 

Peer review is an important procedure used by the scientific community to ensure that the 

quality of published information. Peer review can increase the quality and credibility of the 

scientific information generated across the federal government. This Bulletin is one aspect 

of a larger OMB effort to improve the quality of the scientific information upon which 

policy decisions are based. 

The bulletin has benefited from extensive public and agency comments received on two 

prior draft versions, which were released by OMB in September 15, 2003 and April 28, 

2004. The bulletin includes guidance to federal agencies on what information is subject to 

peer review, the selection of appropriate peer reviewers, opportunities for public 

participation, and related issues. The bulletin also defines a peer review planning process 

that will permit the public and scientific societies to contribute to agency dialogue about 

which scientific reports merit especially rigorous peer review. 

The bulletin has benefited from extensive public and agency comments received on two 

prior draft versions, which were released by OMB in September 15, 2003 and April 28, 

2004. The bulletin includes guidance to federal agencies on what information is subject to 

peer review, the selection of appropriate peer reviewers, opportunities for public 

participation, and related issues. The bulletin also defines a peer review planning process 

that will permit the public and scientific societies to contribute to agency dialogue about 

which scientific reports merit especially rigorous peer review. 

If your staff has questions about this guidance, please contact Margo Schwab at (202) 395-

5647 or mschwab@omb.eop.gov

If your staff has questions about this guidance, please contact Margo Schwab at (202) 395-

5647 or mschwab@omb.eop.gov. 

Attachments 

 
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. 

2
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,

 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. 

3
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 

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 

 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. 

4
review. In others, the authors do not concur with changes suggested by one or more 

reviewers. 

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. 

5
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. 

6
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. 

7
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). 

8
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: 

9
“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.” 

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 

10
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

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 

11
review (e.g., refereed journal peer review or peer review under Section II of this 

Bulletin). 

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 

 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. 

12
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 

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. 

 12 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. 

13
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. When time and resources 

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 

14
prospect of challenges to a regulation that later may trigger time consuming and resourcedraining litigation.”14 

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. 

 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. 15 Mark R. Powell, Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process, Resources for the Future, 

Washington, D.C., 1999: 139.

15
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 

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 

 16 Ibid. 

17 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. 

16
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. 

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. 

 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. 

17
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 

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) 

 23 Lars Noah, “Scientific ‘Republicanism’: Expert Peer Review and the Quest for Regulatory Deliberation, 

Emory Law Journal, Atlanta, Fall 2000:1066. 

18
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 

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 

 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. 

19
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 

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 

 26 Ibid.

 

20
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 

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 

21
evaluation made available for public inspection.27 In cases where there is a public panel, 

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. 

 27 National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1983. 

22
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. 

23
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: 

24
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. 

25
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. 

26
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 

27
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. 

28
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 

29
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 

30
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; 

31
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 

32
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. 

33
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. 

34
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 

35
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 

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, 

36
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 

Sciences policy for committee selection with respect to evaluating the potential for 

37
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. 

38
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 

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 

39
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 

agency shall clearly specify time limits for public participation throughout the peer 

review process. 

40
 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 

41
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 

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, 

42
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. 

43
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 precedentsetting 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. 

44
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.

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. 

45