Abstract

Increasing legal demands in the conservation and management of living marine resources require high quality scientific information that is available in a timely manner. These management decisions must be based on the best scientific information available (BSIA), and scientific peer review is an important process in the determination of BSIA. The need for increased throughput to provide timely information and need for rigorous peer review standards are important considerations in the form of peer review to implement. The standards of scientific peer review and principles of what constitute the best scientific information available must be clearly established, while the degree of how rigorous the peer review depend on whether the science is established, emerging, or highly influential. For example, a routine assessment update should not require the same level of rigorous peer review as a benchmark assessment update or a controversial biological opinion. The Center for Independent Experts (CIE) conducts external peer reviews of scientific information for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that satisfy rigorous peer review standards such as independence and lack of conflicts of interest. There are considerations in the form of the peer review, such as desk and panel reviews, in regard to the costs, timeliness, influence, and controversy of the science to be reviewed. The objective of this study is to compare the attributes of various forms of peer review used by selected fishing nations and intergovernmental organizations to provide guidance on how to improve the throughput of peer review processes while ensuring the integrity and credibility of scientific information for management.