<b>Shrestha</b>, G., 2018: Appendix B. Information quality in the assessment. In Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report [Cavallaro, N., G. Shrestha, R. Birdsey, M. A. Mayes, R. G. Najjar, S. C. Reed, P. Romero-Lankao, and Z. Zhu (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 818-820, https://doi. org/10.7930/SOCCR2.2018.AppB.
Information Quality in the Assessment
REFERENCES
Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget, 2004: Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies. OMB Circular M-05-03. Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. [URL]
FRN, 2016: Request for Public Engagement in the Interagency Special Report ‘2nd State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR-2).’ A Notice by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Federal Register, 81FR7497, 7497-7499, Document Number: 2016-02927. [URL]
FRN, 2017: Notice of Availability of Draft Scientific Assessment for Public Comment. A notice by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Federal Register, 82FR51802, 51802, Document Number: 2017-24347. [URL]
Melillo, J. M., T. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe (eds.), 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. [URL]
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018: Review of the Draft Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2).The National Academies Press, Washington, DC., doi: 10.17226/25045.
USDA, 2018: Information Quality Activities. General Information. U.S. Department of Agriculture. [URL]
USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. [A. Crimmins, J. Balbus, J. L. Gamble, C. B. Beard, J. E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R. J. Eisen, N. Fann, M. D. Hawkins, S. C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D. M. Mills, S. Saha, M. C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0R49NQX.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements for highly influential scientific assessments (Executive Office of the President 2004) and the OMB M05-03 Peer Review Bulletin Section III (Peer Review of Highly Influential Scientific Assessments) describe making publicly available the specific information on the peer review of influential documents disseminated by the federal government: “Even for these highly influential scientific assessments, the Bulletin leaves significant discretion to the agency formulating the peer review plan. … The use of a transparent process, coupled with the selection of qualified and independent peer reviewers, should improve the quality of governmental science while promoting public confidence in the integrity of the government’s scientific products.” Under the auspices of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and U.S. Department of Agriculture administrative leadership, the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report followed the requirements, had significant interagency leadership and interests, and underwent multiple peer reviews, including by the public and a committee of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.↩
See Full Chapter & References
