Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat
Participant's Guide to Peer Review Meetings

1. Title

Participant’s Guide to Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Peer Review Meetings

2. Objective

The objective of this guide is to outline expectations from participants before, during and after CSAS peer review meetings, whether in person or virtual.

3. Context

CSAS relies on the diverse range of scientific opinions expressed by peer review participants, and values their contributions of time and expertise to ensuring the Department and Canadians receive the highest quality of science advice.

CSAS peer review meetings are venues for the technical review of scientific information leading to consensus-based science advice. The objective of the CSAS process is to generate science advice that is impartial and rigorous. Peer review participants are expected to act as independent experts.

In accordance with CSAS’s Policy on Participation in Peer Review Meetings participants are selected for their subject matter expertise as it relates to the topic being discussed and as described in the meeting’s Terms of Reference (ToR). All participants are expected to actively contribute to the peer review discussion.

Observers are not allowed. However on a case by case basis, the Steering Committee may approve individuals to participate for the purpose of professional development.

4. Invitations

Peer review meeting invitations arrive by email, from the CSAS office organizing the meeting, or from the peer review meeting Chair. Invitations are non-transferable and so are not able to be transferred to another person or organization. If invitees are unable to attend, their reply to the invitation may include suggested alternates who may be considered in line with their relevant experience and/or expertise.

CSAS peer review meeting invitations include the meeting’s subject area, its Terms of Reference (ToR), dates and location of the meeting. They may also reference pre-meeting work participants are required to complete in advance of the meeting. The invitation also directs invitees to read CSAS’s Policy on Conflict of Interest in Science Peer Review Processes and this Guide.

All invitees are asked to read the Conflict of Interest Policy as accepting the invitation is understood to communicate to organizers that the participant has read the Policy, agrees to abide by it, and commits to remaining objective throughout the peer review process. Any questions about the Policy or any other aspect of the peer review meeting should be addressed to the CSAS office or peer review meeting Chair before accepting the invitation.

In addition, prospective meeting participants are asked to review all of the expectations herein before accepting an invitation to participate in a CSAS peer review.

5. Before the Peer Review Meeting

Participants will receive documents prior to the meeting. These documents should not be further distributed or shared; they are considered an author’s confidential work and as such are subject to change until the documents are reviewed and fully approved by the Department and published on the CSAS website.

All participants are expected to read the working paper(s) for the meeting in advance, and be prepared to speak to their comments on the working papers during the peer review meeting.

Peer review participants may be asked in the invitation or in a subsequent correspondence to provide a full, critical written review of the meeting’s working paper(s), to be submitted to the Chair(s) at a specified date before the meeting is to begin. Other tasks may also be requested by the Steering Committee in advance of the meeting.

While all participants are by definition reviewers, a designated official reviewer may be identified from among the other reviewers and may provide detailed written comments on the working paper(s). The official reviewer may also be asked to present those comments to the peer review meeting.

6. During the Peer Review Meeting

Participants are expected to remain present for the duration of the peer review meeting and are not to seek replacement part way through the peer review, except in rare circumstances and only with the approval of the Chair(s) and/or the CSAS office.

By providing objective scientific peer review of others’ work, participants are expected to offer constructive, impartial, evidence based views, free of personal and non-scientific disagreement.

Reviewers are expected to be active, objective subject matter experts who contribute openly and fully to the critical review of scientific information and analysis based on the meeting’s ToR. This ensures that the Department receives the full breadth of the information it needs to provide the best possible scientific advice.

The peer review meeting Chair’s(s’) role is to lead and manage the meeting. The Chair(s) will ensure that all participants have the opportunity to speak and that the code of conduct outlined below is followed. To encourage participation, the Chair may call on anyone at anytime.

7. Participant's Code of Conduct

To ensure peer review meetings (whether in person or virtual) run efficiently and maintain a professional, respectful tone, participants are expected to:

• Arrive at/connect to the meeting on time;
• Arrive having read all of the pre-meeting documents and having noted concerns, comments and questions in advance;
• Be prepared to actively contribute to the discussion at the table;
• Respect other participants’ sources of knowledge, values, experience, expertise and points of view;
• Focus discussions on facts and evidence;
• Focus on methodology and conclusions, not the implications of the science advice.
• Speak clearly, listen carefully and ask for clarification if a point is not understood;
• Be as concise and brief as possible;
• Not engage in sidebar discussions while the Chair or others are speaking;
• Share all relevant data and observations;
• Freely articulate dissenting opinions even if alone in disagreement;
• Test and challenge ideas constructively;
• Explain agreements or disagreements;Look for places to agree and find consensus;
• Protect any confidential and proprietary information provided by individuals, communities, and/or entities for the purpose of CSAS peer review;
• Refrain from yelling, using foul language, formulating threats or acting in a way that could be perceived as threatening.

The Chair will remind participants who do not maintain a professional and respectful behaviour of the expectations stated above. Repeated failure to abide by the code may result in the Chair asking the participant to leave all or part of the meeting, and could affect further participation in CSAS processes.

8. After the Peer Review Meeting

Participants are expected to:

• Maintain the confidentiality of the science advice and all meeting-related documents until such time as the advice has been published on the CSAS website, or until the CSAS office has authorized the release of the advice, e.g. for a technical briefing or other forum; 
• As required, review the draft Science Advisory Report (SAR) within the deadline stated;
• Respect what was agreed to at the meeting (i.e. summary bullets, portions or all of the SAR).
• Refrain from re-opening disagreements that were aired and resolved during the peer review meeting, or from raising new areas of disagreements. All such areas of concern should be identified and resolved during the meeting.

Due to the nature of some of the work being reviewed, public and media interest in the science advice surrounding specific topics under peer review is sometimes high. To inform the public once a scientific consensus is achieved and summary bullets are agreed to, a technical briefing may be held shortly after the peer review meeting has ended to discuss these bullets with stakeholders and then the media. These briefings are conducted at the discretion of the Department.

9. Application and Authority

For Regional peer review processes, the final Authority for application of this guide is the Regional Director of Science.

For Zonal peer review processes, the final Authority for application of this guide, is the Regional Director of Science for the Region leading/coordinating the peer review process.

For National processes the final Authority for application of this guide, is the Executive Director of Science Programs.

Questions on the policy may be addressed by e-mail to:

Executive Director, Science Programs
Ecosystems and Oceans Science
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
CSAS-SCCS@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

10. Date last revised

February 2021