SEI Guidance to Reviewers
Please READ this document carefully.

Reviewing a conservation action or an agency document differs from reviews of manuscripts or grant proposals. Many such actions are the results of extensive previous work by interested parties. Your scientific opinion is being sought to give a fresh, technical perspective on the information upon which decisions are based. Most importantly, your review will probably be put to immediate use, and will influence on the ground decisions. This raises some special considerations and cautions.

We ask that you limit your comments to the technical issues at hand, and to avoid (wherever possible) judgements on management decisions (which typically involve considerations other than science). Thus it is entirely appropriate (for instance) to make statements such as "This analysis is flawed; available information was not used effectively", but we ask that you not make statements such as "I disagree with the selection of the preferred management alternative; alternative B would be more appropriate". It may be difficult to separate our feelings on an issue from our review of the science involved, but such distinctions are essential if we are to be effective. Statements of personal opinion should be made independently of technical evaluations: if you wish to make such statements please put them in a separate letter - we will provide you with the appropriate address.

Conservation decisions have timelines. Often the decision-maker has to take action with less than complete information. We ask that you recognize this constraint, and not set a 'standard of proof'. That is the decision-maker's responsibility. Consider, for instance, the issue of a declining population. The decision-maker or manager must make a choice as to whether the evidence is 'sufficient' to take action (e.g. to list as endangered). A reviewer's role is instead to determine whether the relevant data were considered, and whether they were used appropriately. Very often the standard applied in conservation work is 'best available science'.

A particularly valuable aspect of your review may be to evaluate uncertainty. We ask that you look carefully at the strength of data and of conclusions. It may well be that a manager must make decisions using less than conclusive data - is this fact acknowledged? Are such uncertainties dealt with objectively and openly, or are they left unstated? Again, it is not our role to criticize the decision itself, but it is entirely appropriate to evaluate whether the information that is available is well used.

Unlike reviews for journals, there will be no 'editorial decision' following your review. However SEI will evaluate both the original document, and all the reviews received. We may then issue an overall summation. If all reviewers are in agreement, SEI's statement will make that clear. If reviewers differ substantively, our final cover letter will point out such differences; if necessary we will point out any errors in reviews.

It is SEI policy that reviews are NOT anonymous.

Review subject and questions

The document you are reviewing is __________. The agency will use your reviews to determine how best to proceed with this conservation strategy. It is probable that your reviews will be sent to the scientists that developed the strategy, and that your comments could result in changes to the program. The reviews will become part of the public record of the agency's response to critiques.

In preparing your review please consider the following questions:

General comments

1. How would you evaluate the use of scientific information in the document? Is there a clear and consistent use of the relevant data and facts? Are management or other decisions clearly linked to objective evaluations of fact?

2. Was all available and relevant information used? If not, what available data are missing? Could these omissions have affected the decisions made?

3. Does the document make explicit discussion of uncertainty? If not, please indicate any areas where such uncertainties might influence management decisions.

Specific comments for Review