Topic: OMB guidelines for peer review of information disseminated by federal agencies

Final update: The final policy (.pdf file) was issued 14 January 2005.

How this policy will affect ornithologists

Background: The White House Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), in August 2003, issued draft peer review standards (.pdf file). The standards were intended to make uniform the process by which federal agencies conduct peer review of the scientific information upon which they base their regulatory decisions. The proposed standards were intended to implement the data quality guidelines that were issued in 2002, and would apply only to “significant regulatory information.” That term is defined in the data quality guidelines as “influential information” which in turn is defined as that which “the agency can reasonably determine that the dissemination will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or important private sector decisions.”

Many scientific organizations, including the Ornithological Council, had serious reservations about many aspects of the proposed standards. Comments filed by the OC are here (.pdf file). All comments can be found on the Office of Management and Budget website.

In response, the OIRA in April 2004 issued a revised policy (.pdf file)for further comment.

The final policy (.pdf file)was published 14 January 2005.

How this policy will affect ornithologists

The guidance, which is also available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.pdf, applies to information "disseminated" by federal agencies. The definition of "dissemination" is somewhat technical, but basically means means "agency initiated or sponsored distribution of information to the public." 

The guidance is not limited to scientific information published by scientists who are employed by the federal government.

Generally “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."

The guidance will affect scientific information provided to or relied upon federal agencies by private consultants, companies, and private, non-profit organizations or research institutions, such as universities under the following circumstances:

"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."

Also excluded from dissemination is distribution to government employees, agency contractors or grantees, information released in response to FOIA, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Government Performance and Results Act. It also excludes information disseminated for the purpose of peer review in compliance with the guidance, or shared confidentially among scientific colleagues (e.g., the peer review processes of the federal granting agencies).

Publication in a refereed scientific journal may be deemed sufficient, but if the agency determines that a more rigorous or transparent review process is necessary, or that the 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, then a second review may be conducted.

So basically, whenever scientific information is disseminated and the agency believes it to be "influential" - meaning that the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions - it must be subject to peer review.

Return to Ornithology and Society Page

Return to BIRDNET Home Page