Reviews in management situations usually must be open to promote dialogue. Some scientists will be reluctant to make strong statements if they are subject to public scrutiny. Often the scientists best qualified to be reviewers of a natural resource issue are already involved in it. This sets up a tension between demonstrable independence and depth of understanding. Managers and decisionmakers may not be familiar with the language of science.
Statistical issues are particularly likely to cause confusion.
In academic science, reviews are performed free of charge for the common good and to add to scientific discourse. Hence they are typically given a low priority. In management situations, this will not work. The troublesome experiences in recent cases such as the Tongass and appreciation of the different roles of academic and management science reviewers point the way to more effective integration of peer review into resource management decisions. Clear roles for reviewers must be spelled out.