The revised Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), offers new guidance to federal agencies regarding the peer review of scientific information they disseminate to the public. This update responds to significant criticism of an earlier draft, which stakeholders found to be overly prescriptive and insufficiently clear regarding review scope and process, thereby potentially weakening review quality and causing regulatory delays. The revised Bulletin now mandates peer review only for "influential scientific information" and requires a more rigorous process for "highly influential scientific assessments," particularly those with significant economic or regulatory implications. The Bulletin grants agencies discretion in selecting peer review mechanisms, considering factors such as novelty, complexity, and potential impact, and requires thorough management of conflicts of interest and transparency, including posting peer review reports and agency responses online.
Key improvements include clearer definitions of what constitutes influential information and adequate reviews, a more flexible approach to types of peer review, and a process modeled on established standards such as those of the National Academy of Science. The revision also addresses concerns about excluding qualified scientists due to funding histories and no longer requires direct attribution of comments to individual reviewers, thus promoting candid assessments. Additionally, the Bulletin provides exemptions for specific types of sensitive or routine information, and places waiver authority with agency directors to enable timely responses to urgent health or security matters. Agencies are now expected to update the public on planned and ongoing peer reviews regularly. The Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) acknowledges that many of its concerns have been satisfactorily addressed in this revised draft and does not plan a further formal response, though it invites further university comment to the OIRA.
