This checklist describes information that will be posted online when we conduct a peer review, following guidelines detailed in the OMB Peer Review Bulletin.
About the document
• Short description of the document
• Estimated dissemination date of the final version of the document
About the peer review process
• Kind of peer review that will be conducted
◦ Individual letters,
◦ National Academy of Sciences review, or
◦ Other procedure approved by OMB
• Anticipated number of reviewers
• Reviewer selection method
◦ Reviewers selected by the Service or
◦ Reviewers selected by a designated outside organization
• Primary disciplines or expertise needed in the review (describe).
• Estimated start date of peer review
About public participation
• Opportunities for the public to comment on the work product to be peer reviewed (Indicate whether such public comments will be sought and describe how comments are to be submitted.)
• Indicate whether the public, including scientific or professional organizations, will be asked to nominate potential peer reviewers.
• Contact information for one or more staff regarding this peer review.
Enhancing the Quality and Credibility of Information
To ensure the quality and credibility of the scientific information we use to make decisions, the Fish and Wildlife Service has implemented a formal "peer review" process for influential scientific documents. While we have always consulted experts to ensure that our decisions are based on sound science, through this peer review process we follow the guidelines for Federal agencies spelled out in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review," (PDF, 263 KB) released December 16, 2004. Part of the peer review process is to provide information online about how each peer review is to be conducted, as described in the checklist in the opposite column.
We have identified the following documents as meeting the OMB criteria of peer review for influential scientific information. Click on the links below to get more information about that document and the peer review process we have set up for it, as well as the resulting peer review comments and our response. This list will be updated as necessary.
Posting Date / Title
June 12, 2014 - Peer Review Plan for the Risk Assessment and Mapping Program (RAMP)
December 13, 2013 - Proposed Rule to Remove the Gray Wolf (Canis lupis) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections of the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupis baileyi) by Listing it as Endangered
November 1, 2013 - USFWS Review of Lead Exposure and Effects to Scavenging Birds
May 3, 2013 - Draft Technical Guidance on Selecting Species for Design of Landscape Scale Conservation
Next Step: The Service is developing a new Scope of Work (SOW) outlining what is needed to address peer review comments and to finalize the technical document. Once finalized, the SOW will be posted.
December 19, 2012 – Rapid Screening of Species Risk of Establishment and Impact in the United States
December 19, 2012 – Bayesian Network Model for Invasive and Injurious Species
September 24, 2012 - National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy
Ensuring the Quality and Credibility of Information
The Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to using sound science in its decision-making and to providing the American public with information of the highest quality possible. Federal agencies are required to publish guidelines for ensuring the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information we use and disseminate, and to provide mechanisms for allowing the public to seek correction of that information. Visit our Peer Review website to see all Fish and Wildlife Service peer review agendas by region and program. Visit our Information Quality website for information quality guideline for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior, as well as our responses to inquiries concerning the quality of information on specific topics.
Last updated: September 3, 2014
Please send comments, suggestions and questions for this Web site to: Megan Cook at firstname.lastname@example.org