title: Information Quality in Regulatory Decision Making: Peer Review versus Good Laboratory Practice.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  There is an ongoing discussion on the provenance of toxicity testing data regarding how best to ensure its validity and credibility. A central argument is whether journal peer-review procedures are superior to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards employed for compliance with regulatory mandates.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards.
  
  
  METHODS
  We examined pertinent published literature regarding how scientific data quality and validity are evaluated for peer review, GLP compliance, and development of regulations.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Some contend that peer review is a coherent, consistent evaluative procedure providing quality control for experimental data generation, analysis, and reporting sufficient to reliably establish relative merit, whereas GLP is seen as merely a tracking process designed to thwart investigator corruption. This view is not supported by published analyses pointing to subjectivity and variability in peer-review processes. Although GLP is not designed to establish relative merit, it is an internationally accepted quality assurance, quality control method for documenting experimental conduct and data.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Neither process is completely sufficient for establishing relative scientific soundness. However, changes occurring both in peer-review processes and in regulatory guidance resulting in clearer, more transparent communication of scientific information point to an emerging convergence in ensuring information quality. The solution to determining relative merit lies in developing a well-documented, generally accepted weight-of-evidence scheme to evaluate both peer-reviewed and GLP information used in regulatory decision making where both merit and specific relevance inform the process.
authors.affiliation: L.S. McCarty Scientific Research & Consulting, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada. lsmccarty@rogers.com
authors.forename: Lynn S
authors.initials: LS
authors.lastname: McCarty
authors.forename: Christopher J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: Borgert
authors.forename: Ellen M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Mihaich
mesh_terms: D003657:Decision Making; D004784:Environmental Monitoring; D010380:Peer Review