Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat
Policy on participation in science peer review meetings

On this page

• Policy title
• Effective date
• Policy objective
• Policy statement
• Context
• Definition of an expert
• Achieving the right balance of experts
• Observers
• Application and authority
• Last review date

1. Policy title

Policy on Participation in Science Peer Review Meetings

2. Effective date

This policy takes effect on July 15, 2021.

3. Policy objective

The objective of the Policy on Participation in Science Peer Review Meetings (the Policy) is to ensure a consistent national approach to achieving a balance of appropriate scientific expertise and perspectives at Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) science peer review meetings. This Policy provides guidance to CSAS peer review Steering Committees and to CSAS offices on developing a list of appropriate participants, following the principles of excellence, openness, inclusiveness, and transparency.

4. Policy statement

When considering who will participate in CSAS peer review meetings, Steering Committees must consider DFO’s Science Integrity Policy and CSAS Conflict of Interest Policy. The science issues explored at CSAS peer review meetings can be complex and diverse. Consequently, advice should be drawn from a variety of scientific sources and from experts in relevant disciplines, to capture the full diversity of scientific schools of thought and opinion. Inclusiveness enhances the debate by generating a full and open discussion and drawing in findings and knowledge that may not otherwise be considered. Inclusiveness aids in achieving sound science advice by reducing the effects of conflicts of interest or biases that may exist and considering data and information that may otherwise have been overlooked.

In addition, DFO’s Policy on Science Integrity encourages:

“discussion based on differing interpretations of research and scientific evidence as a legitimate and necessary part of the research and scientific processes and, where appropriate, ensure that these differences are made explicit and accurately represented.”

Input and advice at CSAS peer review meetings need to be sought from a wide range of perspectives, including local and Indigenous knowledge. Participants must have the relevant expertise required to engage constructively in questioning, commenting on and challenging the scientific information and interpretations presented, and playing an active role in arriving at consensus on conclusions during meetings.

Participation in CSAS peer review meetings is by non-transferable invitation only, from national or regional CSAS offices, the meeting Chair(s) or the Science Coordinator of the peer review meeting only. Once a peer review meeting has begun, no substitutions will be permitted except by permission of the Chair(s). Participants are expected to remain and participate for the full duration of peer review meeting.

5. Context

CSAS peer review meetings provide objective scientific information and advice to support departmental decision-making and policy development.

CSAS peer review meetings are venues for the technical review and challenge of scientific information leading to consensus-based science advice, which is defined in the Policy on the Principle of Consensus. Canadian and international experts in relevant scientific disciplines are invited by CSAS to a peer review meeting to analyze data, consider information, and ultimately to provide science advice to the requestor to address the objectives of a previously agreed-to Terms of Reference. Peer review participants are to act as independent experts, not as representatives of organizations. CSAS peer review meetings are conducted at a scientific, working level. They are not consultations or engagement sessions. Science advice generated from CSAS meetings must be free from political, commercial, client and stakeholder interference.

6. Definition of an expert

CSAS Steering Committees should ensure that CSAS peer review meeting participants represent the best-available expertise to support the highest quality of scientific advice. In the context of CSAS peer reviews, an expert:

• Possesses demonstrable comprehensive and authoritative scientific knowledge or related background and working experience in the topic defined in the meeting’s Terms of Reference and working papers
• Possesses local and/or Indigenous knowledge related and appropriate to the topic at hand, to provide peer review of the science
• Understands the nature of peer review and actively contributes knowledge and perspective to the topic under review
• Can provide constructive, critical, scientific review actively and contribute to the development of consensus of scientific information and advice resulting from the meeting

7. Achieving the right balance of experts

The CSAS Steering Committee should ensure that the selection of participants considers the above definition of expert, and:

• Reflects the nature of the issue and expertise required
• Reflects the diversity of scientific opinions on the topic
• Includes the DFO lead Science staff on the topic
• Includes the internal DFO authority (the ‘requestor’) who solicited the science advice
• Includes local and Indigenous experts, as appropriate, to provide peer review of the science presented
• Includes participation of external (non-DFO) domestic and international science experts, as appropriate, based on the topic and scope of the peer review meeting

In addition:

• All meeting participants agree and commit to take part as objective experts in relevant disciplines on the subject matter under review, and not to advocate or actively represent an interest group, a political group, the requestor or a proponent
• 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
• Steering Committees and Chairs, at their discretion, should strive to achieve a balance and diversity of expertise, to achieve a thorough discussion, challenge and analysis leading to sound science advice, while at the same time keeping the peer review to a manageable number of experts
• Meeting participants include, as needed, CSAS staff and DFO employees to record meeting conclusions and outcomes

8. Observers

The CSAS Policy on Observers in Science Peer review Meetings allows interested individuals, from DFO, other government departments, academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, Indigenous organizations and others, to observe peer review meetings for the purposes of awareness and increasing transparency, without compromising science integrity.

Observers do not actively participate in CSAS peer review meetings and are not covered by this Policy. Observers do not require expertise on the topic being reviewed, are not permitted to contribute to the science peer review meeting or to interact with Participants and will not receive meeting materials. Decisions on Observers are made on a case-by-case basis, for each peer review meeting.

9. Application and authority

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

Senior Director, Open Science
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
200 Kent St.
Ottawa, ON,
Canada K1A 0E6
DFO.CSAS-SCAS.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

10. Last review date

April 2026