Peer review reviewer responsibilities

You should consider obtaining internal and external quality assurance reviews of the study (to ferret out errors in modeling, data, etc.). Independent peer reviews of the QRA results can be helpful by presenting alternate viewpoints, and you should include outside experts (either consultants or personnel from another plant) on the QRA review panel. You should also set up a mechanism wherein disputes between QRA team members (e.g., technical arguments about safety issues) can be voiced and reconciled. All of these factors play an essential role in producing a defendable, high-quality QRA. Once the QRA is complete, you must formally document your response to the project team s final report and any recommendations it contains. 

The Steering Group will also advise IPCS on the appropriate form of the document (i.e. a standard CICAD or a de novo CICAD) and which institution bears the responsibility of the document production, as well as on the type and extent of the international peer review. 

These experts collectively have knowledge of methyl parathion s physical and chemical properties, toxicokinetics, key health end points, mechanisms of action, human and animal exposure, and quantification of risk to humans. All reviewers were selected in conformity with the conditions for peer review specified in Section 104(I)(13) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended. 

The citation of the peer review panel should not be understood to imply its approval of the profile s final content. The responsibility for the content of this profile lies with the ATSDR. 

This profile reflects ATSDR s assessment of all relevant toxicologic testing and information that has been peer-reviewed. Staff of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other Federal scientists have also reviewed the profile. In addition, this profile has been peer-reviewed by a nongovernmental panel and was made available for public review. Final responsibility for the contents and views expressed in this toxicological profile resides with ATSDR. 

At present there is a fairly widespread tendency to use formularies and protocols. Thus, by way of example, Italy legislated to this effect in 1997 (seeking to generate incentives for responsible behaviour, mainly through guidelines dealing with the treatment of particular diseases). The success of this step depends on the involvement of health professionals, consensus, peer reviews and continual updating. 

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE Neither the CEC or the IPCS nor any person acting on behalf of the CEC or the IPCS is responsible for the use which might be made of this information. This card contains the collective views of the IPCS Peer Review Committee and may not reflect in all cases all the detailed requirements included in national legislation on the subject. The user should verify compliance of the cards with the relevant legislation in the country of use. 

---