The Challenges and Opportunities of Peer Review in Health Impact Assessment
While HIA guidelines and practice standards are used throughout the field, peer review is a potentially untapped resource for HIA practitioners in the US and potentially internationally. Peer review is thought to strengthen HIA practice, although very few guidance documents exist, and there has been little research to date on the efficacy of peer review for improving HIAs.
To explore the possible value of peer review in HIA, an expert panel was convened at the 2013 HIA of the Americas Workshop, and an online survey was used to query HIA practitioners regarding their experience with and motivation for HIA peer review.
Most survey respondents (n=20 out of 26) indicated that peer review in HIA was helpful, and 15 respondents thought a formal peer review process would improve HIA practice. Respondents wanted peer review to be timely and the reviewer to approach the review as a mentor rather than a gatekeeper.
This paper offers the initial development of a peer review typology based on feedback from the online survey and workshop participants. Better understanding of the potential challenges and opportunities for using peer review in HIA may help to improve HIA practice.
Abelson, P. (1990). Mechanisms for evaluating scientific information and the role of peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (1986-1998), 41(3), 216.
Beanlands, G. E., & Duinker, P. N. (1983). An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in Canada: Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University Halifax
Bourcier, E., Charbonneau, D., Cahill, C., & Dannenberg, A. (2014). Do health impact assessments make a difference? A national evaluation of HIAs in the United States. Seattle: Center for Community Health and Evaluation.Retrieved from: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2014/rwjf409204/subassets/rwjf409204_1
Cashmore, M. (2004). The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(4), 403-426.
Chaker, A., El-Fadl, K., Chamas, L., & Hatjian, B. (2006). A review of strategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(1), 15-56.
Dannenberg, A. L., Bhatia, R., Cole, B. L., Heaton, S. K., Feldman, J. D., & Rutt, C. D. (2008). Use of health impact assessment in the US: 27 case studies, 1999–2007. American journal of preventive medicine, 34(3), 241-256.
European Centre for Health Policy. (1999). Gothenburg Consensus Paper.
Fredsgaard, M., Cave, B., & Bond, A. (2009). A review package for health impact assessment reports of development projects. Leeds: Ben Cave Associates.Retrieved from: https://www.scambs.gov.uk/sites/www.scambs.gov.uk/files/documents/HIA%20Review%20Package%20-%20Ben%20Cave%20Assoc.pdf
Goldbeck-Wood, S. (1999). Evidence on peer review--scientific quality control or smokescreen? British Medical Journal, 318(7175), 44.
Haigh, F., Baum, F., Dannenberg, A., Harris, M., Harris-Roxas, B., Keleher, H., . . . Spickett, J. (2013). The effectiveness of health impact assessment in influencing decision-making in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1188.
Harris-Roxas, B., & Harris, E. (2011). Differing forms, differing purposes: A typology of health impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(4), 396-403.
Harris, P., Sainsbury, P., & Kemp, L. (2014). The fit between health impact assessment and public policy: Practice meets theory. Social Science & Medicine, 108, 46-53.
Klamathrestoration.gov. Peer review process. Retrieved 17 Jan, 2017, from https://klamathrestoration.gov/keep-me-informed/secretarial-determination/role-of-science/peer-review-process
National Research Council. (2011). Improving health in the United States: the role of health impact assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences
Office of Management and Budget. (2004). Issuance of OMB’s “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review”. Washington, DC: OMB.Retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.pdf
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the royal society of medicine, 99(4), 178-182.
Solomon, D. J. (2007). The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the information age. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1).
SOPHIA. (n.d.). SOPHIA: Society of practitioners of health impact assessment. Retrieved 17 Jan, 2017, from https://sophia.wildapricot.org
The Health Impact Project. (2013). The rise of HIAs in the United States. Retrieved 17 Jan, 2017, from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/data-visualizations/2013/the-rise-of-hias-in-the-united-states
Vohra, S. (2005). Integrating health into environmental impact assessment. Middlesex: Living Knowledge.Retrieved from: http://cloud.snappages.com/803c0945dd99f78b94cef59b278fec5244df7b24/Integrating%20health%20into%20EIA%20-%20LK%20England%20-%202005.pdf
Vohra, S. (2007). International perspective on health impact assessment in urban settings. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, 18(10), 152-154.
Copyright to works published in Chronicles of Health Impact Assessment is retained by the author(s). Articles published in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process.