Our work strives to inform decision makers in the government, the broader STEM enterprise, the private sector, and other communities as they address complex and emerging issues involving science, engineering, and medicine.

• We WILL undertake work and activities to advise and support the federal government, using the same rigorous practices to ensure that the projects are scoped and completed in a manner that ensures that the work is based in the evidence and meets our standards of excellence, objectivity, and nonpartisanship. The portfolio of projects and activities sponsored by the federal government will evolve to reflect changing federal priorities, as it has with every administration.

• We WILL undertake work and activities to advise and support the broader STEM enterprise, the private sector, and other communities, using the same rigorous practices to ensure that the projects are scoped and completed in a manner that ensures the work is based in the evidence and meets our standards of excellence, objectivity, and nonpartisanship. Furthermore, the work we undertake should have a sponsor or other decision maker who can act on our advice.

• We WILL conduct activities in ways that provide value to sponsors and broader audiences. This means ensuring the scope, approach, and discussions are broadly useful, that different audiences are able to provide input, and that materials convey information in a clear and accessible manner.

• We will NOT undertake work that is inconsistent with scientific evidence, for which an evidence base is insufficient, or that appears to be advocacy or have a foregone conclusion. We will avoid projects that would require us to make value judgments or that would be viewed as advocacy for specific policy or social outcomes, and we will avoid sponsors that may be viewed as advocates for such outcomes. Partaking in such work would serve to undermine our credibility.

• We will NOT enter any agreement that impedes our ability to adhere to our mission, institutional standards, and the norms of science. We will ensure that sponsors are assessed for suitability not only for the specific activity but also for broader institutional suitability.

• We WILL consider changes in project scope or approach for projects that are underway, as needed, to respond to a changing external environment, an evolving sponsor landscape, or other emerging issues. Substantive changes to projects must be approved internally at the appropriate level and with the concurrence of all project sponsors.

• We WILL consider changes to reports under development, as needed, to reflect rapidly evolving technologies, external landscapes, or other emerging issues. Our goal is to ensure that our published reports are credible, clear, and have the impact that the work deserves.

Documenting the state of knowledge is core to the scientific process. Transparency about our current and past work is essential to maintaining our credibility.

• We will NOT remove past reports that have satisfied our rigorous peer review and institutional approval processes from our public websites, even if the context or the science has evolved. These reports are already publicly available and are part of our body of work.

• We will NOT revise past reports that have satisfied our rigorous peer review and institutional approval processes, even if the context or the science has evolved. On rare occasions, we will make minor corrections of fact in the immediate aftermath of publication. All such corrections will be clearly identified and the reasons for them provided, following institutional review and approval processes.

• We WILL rely on our well-established, time-tested report review process and the independent, expert volunteers who contribute to its success.

• We WILL accurately reflect the ideas and perspectives shared when summarizing workshops or other public meetings in our proceedings documents. We risk eroding our credibility and the trust of our volunteers if summaries of events do not reflect what occurred.

• We MAY conduct new examinations of topics of past reports as new knowledge and evidence becomes available. We may re-examine topics of established scientific consensus if new evidence or research emerges that significantly challenges or expands our core understanding.

Our activities strive to include a broad range of expertise, experiences, and perspectives. Incorporating multiple perspectives leads to more rigorous and more relevant science and insights for decision making.

• We WILL openly and widely advertise our public activities and make it as easy as possible for people to attend and contribute, whether at workshops, meetings, or other convenings, or through requests for written input.

• We WILL seek to reflect a range of perspectives in our committee members, invited speakers, and reviewers. Our activities will have greater reach and impact if they include individuals with a broad range of expertise and experience from a variety of sectors, institutions, and locations. Their inputs will help identify areas of potential confusion, strengthen our work, and ensure that messages are clear and accessible.

• We WILL share our published reports with the media, federal agencies, Congress, the scientific community, interested audiences, and the broader public.

We remain steadfast in our commitment to the scientific rigor of all National Academies’ products. As such, we will rely on our well-established, time-tested report review process and the independent, expert volunteers who contribute to its success:

• The overall goal of report review is to ensure each report is scientifically sound, clear, and objective before releasing it to the public.

• Each report is subjected to rigorous review by a group of independent experts anonymous to the committee.

• Until a report draft clears report review, it is subject to change, and it may change in important ways.

• A report is not considered final and cannot be released to the sponsor or the public until the review process is completed.

• All drafts of the report and report review documents remain confidential, even after the report is released.

• Although reports are authored by independent committees, they are considered a product of the National Academies.

Reviewers are asked to assess if a report:

• Fully addresses the approved study Statement of Task without exceeding it

• Contains only statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations supported by the evidence, analyses, and arguments presented in the report

• Treats sensitive policy issues with appropriate care

• Maintains an impartial and objective tone

• Is effectively organized and well written

During review, institutional guidelines and policies are taken into consideration to help ensure consistency across National Academies’ products and adherence to institutional values and standards. This may require additional institutional review, as it includes the handling of:

• Original data collection, analysis, and modeling

• Illustrative examples

• Organizational, budgetary, and statutory recommendations

• Titles and summaries

• Classified information

• Legal considerations

• Other considerations

Review monitors — volunteers who serve as impartial arbiters of the review process — evaluate the committee’s responses and decide if the revised draft adequately responds to the reviewer comments. At this stage, the monitor may suggest additional revisions or recommend a report for sign-off. When a report is recommended for sign-off, the Office of Peer Review (OPR) is responsible for making a determination of review sign-off.

Finally, although the review process follows a clearly defined path, each review is inherently unique. Program staff are encouraged to reach out to the OPR staff in advance of and during the review process with any questions or concerns they may have.