- Illinois Department of Public Health Comments [PDF, 51KB]
- Minnesota Department of Health Comments [PDF, 146KB]
- Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services Comments [PDF, 132KB]
- ATSDR Internal Reviewer Comments [PDF, 1211KB]
- EPA Comments Part 1 [PDF, 5604KB]
- EPA Comments Part 2 [PDF, 2833KB]
- States Comments [PDF, 421KB]
- Summary of Expert Panel Meeting [PDF, 358KB]
- EPA E-mails [PDF, 1212KB]
- ATSDR Response to International Joint Commission Comments [PDF, 135KB]
- EPA Comments [PDF, 3309KB]
- Peer Review [PDF, 6701KB]
A high standard of science guides CDC/ATSDR internal review and clearance processes. CDC and ATSDR believe the Great Lakes report should contain high-quality science and information that can guide future research, policy-making, and personal health decisions. Peer review and expert review are methods of improving scientific quality of publications. Between 2004 and 2007, authors solicited input on the draft report Public Health Implications of Great Lakes Areas of Concern from both peer reviewers and expert reviewers.
Peer review is a process that involves independent assessment of the scientific merit of research by panels of experts who provide written assurance that their reviews are free of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Results of the peer review process should therefore be without inherent bias and can be viewed as fair and just by applicants. Peer review of research projects at the CDC and ATSDR helps provide confidence to management, academic and other partners, various branches of government, and the public that federal funds appropriated for research will support rigorous science.
Expert review is a process that includes independent assessment of the scientific merit of research by experts in other federal or state agencies that are knowledgeable in the subject matter addressed in a publication. Expert review helps ensure that policy statements and scientific claims are rigorous and consistent with work conducted by other agencies.
While several rounds of peer and expert review of the draft report were conducted, many important reviewer comments were not adequately addressed. CDC/ATSDR provided peer and expert review comments received on this report before 2008 to the Institute of Medicine−an independent, unbiased, authoritative source of science-based health information−to assist in the IOM’s review of CDC/ATSDR’s decision to take more time to improve the scientific quality of the report before releasing it to the public.