Peer Review and Information Quality - OMB Issues Final Guidelines

The document discusses the issuance of the final Peer Review Guidelines by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), published in December 2004, which provide federal agencies with standards for the peer review of influential scientific information as mandated by the Information Quality Act. The guidelines set out requirements for when and how agencies should undertake peer review, particularly for information deemed influential in public policy or scientific assessments with significant economic or societal impact. Although these guidelines do not directly affect universities, university-affiliated researchers may be impacted if their work is officially adopted or used by federal agencies, requiring additional transparency in data and appropriate disclaimers to distinguish personal conclusions from agency views.

Key points addressed include the heightened standards for peer review of highly influential scientific assessments—now defined by broader criteria such as potential impact over $500 million, novelty, controversy, or precedent-setting aspects. The guidelines also emphasize public disclosure of peer review panelists and endorse the processes of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as a model for rigorous review. While these changes aim to improve scientific rigor and transparency in federal decision-making, they are expected to increase administrative complexity and burdens for agencies, specifically in terms of planning, documentation, and disclosure. The document further notes that OMB revised earlier versions of the guidelines in response to public comments, including those from the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), addressing concerns about review scope, reviewer selection, and burdensome requirements, but the final version broadens the applicability and expectations surrounding peer review in federal agencies.