Guidelines for Review of Reports

Purpose

The purpose of review is to assist the authors in making their report as accurate and effective as possible and to ensure that they and the institution are creditably represented by the report published in both their names. Review not only fulfills the institutional obligation to exercise oversight, but also provides the authors with preliminary reactions from a diverse group of experts and, as a result, enhances the clarity, cogency, and credibility of the final document. Reviewers are asked to consider whether in their judgment the evidence and arguments presented are sound and the report is fully responsive to the terms of reference, not whether they concur with the findings.

Review Criteria

Although no rigid set of criteria is likely to be applicable to all reports, reviewers may find the following questions useful in formulating their comments.

1. Are the purpose and/or terms of reference clearly described in the report? Are all aspects of the terms of reference fully addressed? Do the authors go beyond their charge or expertise?
2. Are the conclusions and recommendations adequately supported by evidence, analysis and argument? Are uncertainties or incompleteness in the evidence explicitly recognized? If any recommendations are based on value judgments or the collective opinions of the authors, is this acknowledged and are adequate reasons given for reaching those judgments?
3. Are the data and analyses handled competently? Are statistical methods applied appropriately?
4. Are sensitive policy issues treated with proper care? For example, if the report contains recommendations pertaining to the reorganization of an agency or the creation of a new institutional entity, are the advantages and disadvantages of alternative options, including the status quo, considered?
5. Are the report's exposition and organization effective? Is the title appropriate?
6. Is the report fair? Is its tone impartial and devoid of special pleading?
7. Does the executive summary concisely and accurately describe the key findings and recommendations? Is it consistent with the other sections of the report?
8. Are appendices, if any, relevant to the charge?
9. What other significant improvements, if any, might be made in the report?

In providing comments, reviewers are encouraged to distinguish issues they consider to be of general/major concern from other, less significant points.