{
  "id": "RL32680",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32680",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 305811,
      "date": "2005-02-03",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:54:50.570029",
      "title": "Peer Review: OMB's Proposed, Revised, and Final Bulletins",
      "summary": "In September 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a proposed\nbulletin\non \"Peer Review and Information Quality\" in the  Federal Register  that sought to\nestablish a process\nby which all \"significant regulatory information\" would be peer reviewed. The scope of the\nproposed bulletin was very broad, covering virtually all agencies and defining regulatory information\nas \"any scientific or technical study that ... might be used by local, state, regional, federal and/or\ninternational regulatory bodies.\" Such information would be subject to peer review if the agency\ncould determine that it could have a \"clear and substantial impact on important public policies or\nimportant private sector decisions\" when disseminated. The proposed bulletin placed additional peer\nreview requirements on \"especially significant regulatory information,\" and said agencies were\nrequired to notify OMB in advance of any studies that might require peer review and how any such\nreviews would be conducted. \n  The proposed bulletin aroused controversy, with some observers expressing concern that it\ncould create a centralized peer review system within OMB that would be vulnerable to political\nmanipulation or control by regulated entities. OMB received nearly 200 comments on the proposal,\nand published a \"substantially revised\" peer review bulletin in April 2004 that was broader in scope\nthan the proposed bulletin in that it applied to \"influential scientific information\" (which includes,\nbut is not limited to, regulatory information) and \"highly influential scientific assessments.\" \nHowever, agencies were given substantial discretion to decide whether information is \"influential\"\nand therefore requires a peer review. The revised bulletin also allowed agencies to use the National\nAcademy of Sciences for peer reviews or to use other procedures that had been approved by OMB. \nIt also provided exemptions for certain classes of information, such as information related to national\nsecurity, products by government-funded scientists that are not represented as views of a federal\nagency, and routine statistical information. However, OMB retained significant authority to decide\nwhen information is \"highly influential\" (and, therefore, requires more specific peer review\nprocedures) and to approve alternative peer review procedures.\n  OMB received more than 50 comments on the revised peer review bulletin, many of which\n were\nsupportive of the changes made to the proposal. However, some commenters believed the changes\ndid not go far enough, while others believed that OMB had significantly weakened the bulletin. In\nJanuary 2005, OMB published a final version of the bulletin with what it described as \"minor\nrevisions\" to the version published in April 2004 (e.g., requiring agencies to disclose the identities\nof peer reviewers and to prepare an annual report on their peer review activities). A number of issues\nregarding the implementation of the bulletin remain unclear (e.g., how much discretion agencies will\nbe given to decide when and what kind of peer review is required). This report will be updated when\nany further revisions to the bulletin are published or other significant events occur.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32680",
          "sha1": "2b216269f3114579574e2d5b345d80472246f7fb",
          "filename": "files/20050203_RL32680_2b216269f3114579574e2d5b345d80472246f7fb.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32680",
          "sha1": "a0b63eacdf03ab3573c5b6dc623294f6abb0a565",
          "filename": "files/20050203_RL32680_a0b63eacdf03ab3573c5b6dc623294f6abb0a565.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Science and Technology Policy"
  ]
}