The revised Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), provides updated and detailed guidance to federal agencies regarding the peer review of influential scientific information disseminated to the public. Unlike the prior guidelines, which merely encouraged peer review, this Bulletin mandates it for information deemed influential and introduces even more stringent requirements for "highly influential scientific assessments," particularly those linked to significant regulatory actions or broad interagency interest. Agencies are granted discretion over the choice of peer review mechanisms, balancing considerations such as novelty, complexity, and benefit-cost implications, while emphasizing transparency, conflict-of-interest management, and public disclosure of peer review outcomes. The Bulletin also offers clear exemptions for specific categories of information, including national security and urgent public health matters, and places authority for waivers with agency heads rather than OIRA.
Feedback from stakeholders, including the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) and other scientific organizations, was instrumental in shaping this revision. Concerns about the previous draft’s prescriptive nature, potential delays, and exclusion of qualified reviewers due to funding sources were addressed. The revised Bulletin now permits reliance on prior adequate peer reviews, avoids attribution of specific comments to individual panelists, and aligns reviewer selection processes with established ethical standards, such as those of the National Academy of Sciences. The new provisions reflect greater balance, promote inclusion of diverse scientific expertise, and aim to enhance the quality and transparency of federal information dissemination without unduly hampering regulatory timeliness or excluding leading experts. The Bulletin also requires agencies to maintain and publicly update lists of planned peer reviews, further supporting accountability and openness in federal scientific communications.
