Scientific input is recognized as a critical and unmet need in environmental decision making. SEI believes that scientific peer review, science advising, and the involvement of scientists can help ensure better conservation and management decisions. The facts speak for themselves:

• Habitat Conservation Plans are greatly improved by early scientific involvement (Defenders of Wildlife, 1997)
• More science leads to better management decisions (NCEDR, 1999; NCEAS 1999)
• External peer review ensures that agencies use all the best available scientific data (Brosnan 2000)
• The public has greater confidence in peer reviewed information.

SEI strongly believes that scientists have a social responsibility to contribute their expertise to ensure that decisions and policies reflect the best science and contribute to the long-term sustainability of the planet. Acting on this, SEI has established a conservation science panel. The panel comprises over 200 respected experts, who have committed themselves to working through SEI to provide impartial scientific advice to all interested parties.

Why peer review?

Peer review is scientific quality-control: it is the major means with which scientists establish and maintain professional standards. If a document has received impartial and independent review, it is likely to be well crafted, and to represent the best available information. Peer review is useful to scientists, by ensuring the quality of their work. It is also very useful to decision-makers or the public, who can have more confidence in the work, even if they may not be familiar with all the technical material.

Peer review is useful at all stages of decision-making and planning. For instance---
Early involvement of outside, impartial scientists helps planners and decision makers to recognize and avoid problems. It also gives managers some security in the scientific grounding of their proposals. Later review of plans gives all parties an impartial evaluation of the merits of a proposal. For instance, does a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) adequately address scientific information? Are all necessary facts incorporated? What are the uncertainties about the species involved?

Peer review concerns science: it does not directly address management decisions, which may involve other factors (e.g. costs, public opinion, etc.). However reviews may address the scientific underpinnings of such decisions. SEI requires reviewers to restrict their comments to issues of science. This ensures that reviews are independent, impartial, and useful. Nevertheless, peer review is not peer approval. When scientists feel that the weight of scientific evidence contradicts particular claims, then it is our responsibility to state so clearly.

Examples of groups served by SEI peer reviewers:

Government:	US Forest Service US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service UK Government Montserrat Government St.Barth's Marine Reserve Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission City of Seaside City of Friday Harbor
Scientists:	American Ornithological Council Oregon State University
Conservation Groups:	Defenders of Wildlife Northwest Ecosystem Alliance Anguilla National Trust Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Private Sector:	Big Creek Lumber Company Weyerhaeuser
Consultants:	J.D.White & Co David Evans & Assoc.

How the Process Works
If you are interested in obtaining SEI advice or review, contact us at sei@sei.org, or by calling 503-246-5008. If we agree to provide reviews, we will ourselves contact the scientists who will provide the evaluations. We provide guidance to reviewers through our policies, and ensure that reviews are timely and complete. Reviews can be large or small, and involve one or many scientists. Cost varies with the scale of the project. Small reviews are typically carried out pro bono, or through reimbursement of expenses. Larger scale projects are tailored towards particular project needs. SEI policy is that reviews are NOT anonymous.

Examples of SEI's Peer Review Process
Completed Reviews
Article on Peer Review
Peer Review Policies
USFWS Letter on SEI Peer Review