Peer Review

{
  "id": "MLC-T-ENV-020449",
  "term": "Peer Review",
  "field": "Environment",
  "definition": "1. A rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation process using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a judgment of the technical/ scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects.\n\n2. An assessment of a product conducted by a person or persons of similar expertise to the author.\n\n3. A documented critical review of work by qualified individuals (or organizations) who are independent of those who performed the work, but are collectively equivalent in technical expertise. A peer review is conducted to ensure that activities are technically adequate, competently performed, properly documented, and satisfy established technical and quality requirements. The peer review is an indepth assessment of the assumptions, calculations, extrapolations, alternate interpretations, methodology, acceptance criteria, and conclusions pertaining to specific work and of the documentation that supports them.\n\n4. A documented critical review of a specific major scientific and/or technical work product. Peer review is intended to uncover any technical problems or unresolved issues in a preliminary or draft work product through the use of independent experts. This information is then used to revise the draft so that the final work product will reflect sound technical information and analyses. The process of peer review enhances the scientific or technical work product so that the decision or position taken by the EPA, based on that product, has a sound and credible basis.\n\n5. In EMAP, peer review means written, critical response provided by scientists and other technically qualified participants in the process. EMAP documents are subject to formal peer review procedures at laboratory and program levels. In EMAP, Level 1 peer reviews are performed by EPA's Science Advisory Board, level 2 by the NAS National Research Council, level 3 by specialist panel peer reviews, and level 4 by internal EPA respondents.\n\n6. The process by which manuscripts submitted to health, biomedical, and other scientifically oriented journals and other publications are evaluated by experts in appropriate fields (usually anonymous to the authors) to determine if the manuscripts are of adequate quality for publication.\n\n7. Documented critical review of work by qualified individuals (or organizations)who are independent of those who performed the work, but are collectively equivalent in technical expertise. A peer review is conducted to ensure that activities are technically adequate, competently performed, properly documented,... and satisfy established technical and quality requirements. The peer review is an in-depth assessment of the assumptions, calculations, extrapolations, alternate interpretations, methodology, acceptance criteria, and conclusions pertaining to specific work and of the documentation that supports them.\n\n8. Documented critical review of a specific major scientific and/or technical work product. Peer review is intended to uncover any technical problems or unresolved issues in apreliminary or draft work product through the use of independent experts. This information is then used to revise the draft so that the final work product will reflect sound technical information and analyses. The process of peer review enhances the scientific or technical work product so that thedecision or position taken by the EPA, based on that product, has a sound and credible basis.\n\n9. The process by which manuscripts submitted to health, biomedical, and other scientifically oriented journals and other publications are evaluated by experts in appropriate fields (usually anonymous to the authors) to determine if the manuscripts are of adequate quality for publication. [NLM/NICHSR 2004][Thesaurus of Terms Used in Microbial Risk Assessment]A process whereby scientific and technical research and analysis is subject to outside review and comments by individuals or a panel qualified to review and comment upon the material. Many scientific and technical journals conduct peer reviews before studies are published. Governmental agencies involved in scientific and technical missions and programs also often use peer reviews to guide research agendas, evaluate research proposals and studies, and evaluate proposed health-based environment standards. [NYS 1998]\n\n10. A documented process for enhancing a scientific or technical work product so that the decision or position taken by the agency, based on that product, has a sound, credible basis. It is performed by credible individuals who are independent of those who performed the work and who are at least collectively equivalent in technical expertise to those who performed the original work.",
  "abbreviation": "PR",
  "subject": "Science and research",
  "references": [
    "EERE Peer Review Guide 2004; Web Taxonomy-Research,Analysis & Technology Topics. Quotation from EERE Peer Review Guide 2004",
    "Program Evaluation Glossary",
    "Great Lakes: Quality Management Training - Quality Glossary",
    "Glossary: Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources",
    "Environmental Modeling and Assessment Program (EMAP) Master Glossary; EMAP Master Glossary",
    "NLM/NICHSR 2004",
    "EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs",
    "EPA Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report at http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/pdfs/hf-report20121214.pdf",
    "Thesaurus of Terms Used in Microbial Risk Assessment",
    "EPA 2025 Scientific Integrity Policy"
  ],
  "url": "https://mlchart.com/terminology/environment/peer-review/"
}