This page includes information about the peer consultation process that will be used to evaluate the technologies for Camp Arcadia's beach erosion concerns. |
||
|
BackgroundThe purpose of a peer consultation or review is to convene a group of expert peers to evaluate the scientific basis and appropriateness of the document or issue and associated conclusions. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Peer Review Handbook defines peer review as a documented critical review of a work product or issue that is conducted by qualified individuals who are independent of those who performed the work, but are collectively equivalent in technical expertise (i.e., peers) to those who performed the work (EPA 2000). A peer review is an in-depth assessment of the assumptions, calculations, alternate interpretations, methodology, and conclusions of the document or issue under review. A peer consultation, in contrast, is generally held at an earlier stage of document or issue development. Panel members evaluate the scientific basis and appropriateness of the document or issue and associated conclusions, as well as provide the sponsors with recommendations for improvement or options to consider. An objective evaluation by independent experts with a variety of different viewpoints and perspectives is critical to the credibility of any peer consultation or peer review. Development of ChargeA draft of the document or issue to be discussed is normally reviewed in order to develop the Charge to Peer Reviewers/Consultants. The Charge is generally prepared in consultation with the sponsors and authors to insure that the review or consultation covers all the significant scientific issues and questions. EPA’s Peer Review Handbook describes the charge as a document that identifies recognized issues and invites comments. The Charge focuses the review by presenting specific questions and concerns for the reviewers to address and it invites general comments on the scientific and technical merits of the document or issue under consideration. If appropriate, the Charge is based upon a standard forms, such as those available at Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA, 2006), and includes questions regarding literature completeness and interpretation of data and key decisions for the hazard or issue under consideration. In addition, more specific questions relevant to the assessment or issue are always included. Selection of the Panel and Evaluation of Potential Conflict of Interest and Bias IssuesAs indicated by EPA (2000) or TERA (2006) peer review information, peer reviewers and consultants should be selected for both independence and scientific/technical expertise. Each panel member should have recognized technical expertise that bears on the subject matter under discussion. Peer reviews or consultations should strive to include a range of perspectives on each panel, including diverse professional affiliations (e.g., academic, consulting, environmental, government, and industry). The evaluation of real or perceived bias or conflict of interest is an important consideration and for both peer review and consultation panels and every effort is made to avoid conflicts of interest and biases that would prevent a panel member from giving an independent opinion on the subject. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Peer Review Handbook, 2nd Edition. Science Policy Council. EPA 100-B-00-001. Available at http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/2peerrev.htm Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA). 2006. Independent Peer Review and Consultation. Cincinnati, Ohio. Available at www.tera.org/peer.
|
|
Results of the Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Recommendations Report - Final (Note: this is an 1.3 Mbyte file and may take some time to download, depending on your connection speed.)Clarifying Questions Set 1Clarifying Questions Set 2Beach Erosion Committee - Final Interim Report (MS Word Document) |
||
|
Contact us here. Go to Camp Arcadia's home website. |
||
