Exposure models are critical risk management tools that predict human exposure to chemicals from environmental contamination and commercial products. However, the reliability and trustworthiness of these models hinge on the rigor of their peer review process. To address this, a panel of exposure modeling experts, facilitated by SciPinion, developed best practices for evaluating the peer review of exposure models.
The expert panel recommended key criteria for assessing peer review, including the quality of model documentation and the review process itself – such as internal agency review, expert reports, advisory panels, and journal peer review. They also emphasized the importance of evaluating a model’s overall rigor, considering factors like data quality, verification, corroboration, and comprehensive evaluation. Additional considerations include addressing uncertainty, defining model applicability, and flagging when models are used outside their intended domain.
By establishing these guidelines, the initiative aims to help risk managers identify trustworthy exposure models, provide a roadmap for developers to create more rigorous models, and enhance transparency in the peer review process. As environmental challenges evolve, this work will be crucial in validating models that accurately predict and assess potential risks to health and the environment.
- View the manuscript.
Back to Panel Findings
Figure 1. Input on the forms of peer review.
When asked what form of peer review should take place—a) internal agency review, b) external review with a few experts, c) external review using an independent group of experts (e.g., expert panel or science advisory panel), or d) peer review as part of journal submission)—the experts were more inclined to recommend external peer review using an advisory panel of experts. The least favored forms of peer review were the peer review received as part of a journal submission and interagency peer reviews