Office of the Chief Information Officer &
High Performance Computing and Communications
Peer Review Plans
Title and Description:
Atlantic Wolffish Status Review Report
The subject of this peer review is a status review report for Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) that is being prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) by a team of Federal and state biologists as a result of a petition to list the species. The final report will be made available to the public through a published notice of availability in the Federal Register by October 1, 2009.
ID: 139 Info. Type: ISI
Estimated Dissemination Date: 10/1/2008
Contact Person: Rebecca Rootes NOAA Locator
Date First Posted in Peer Review Agenda: 9/18/2009
Estimated Peer Review Start Date: 6/19/2009
Review type: individual letters
Expected number of peer reviewers: 4-10
Peer reviewers will be selected by: the agency
Will the public, including scientific or professional societies, be asked to nominate potential peer reviewers? yes
Will there be opportunities for the public to comment on the work product to be peer reviewed? no
How? NA
When? NA
Will the agency provide significant and relevant public comments to the peer reviewers before they conduct their review? no
Primary disciplines or expertise needed in the review:
In order to ensure that the best available data for Atlantic wolffish were incorporated and analyzed appropriately in the status review report, we requested that each reviewer address the following topics:
a. Concerning distinct population segments, is the species delineation supported by the information presented and currently available?
b. In general, does the status review report include and cite the best scientific and commercial information available on the species and threats to it and to its habitat?
c. In general, are the scientific conclusions sound and derived logically from the results?
d. Where available, are opposing scientific studies or theories acknowledged and discussed?
Comments on Peer Review:
Charge statement to the peer reviewers: ID139-New-080609-Peer Reviewer Letter