The Communications Advisory Board recommends that every product created by UC ANR personnel be reviewed by other experts before being disseminated to the public. ANR-numbered publications go through a formal peer review process carried out by UC ANR Associate Editors. Other products — such as blog posts, web pages, newsletters, newspaper columns, articles in trade journals, online training programs, YouTube videos, and county publications — should receive at least an informal review.
Types of Materials and Review Options
Review helps ensure that products disseminated by UC ANR are high quality and contain accurate information. Recommended approaches include:
- For many products, an informal review is sufficient. Send a draft to colleagues with relevant expertise and revise based on their comments. Keeping a record of their feedback is recommended.
- For moderated blogs or newsletters, editors serve as technical reviewers before publication. They must ensure information is accurate and science-based, that controversial topics are handled appropriately, and that authors and sources are properly referenced.
- Translational products that summarize or excerpt information from another publication should clearly cite the source. Ideally, these products are sent to the original author for review.
- Any product that recommends a specific pesticide active ingredient or trade name for use on a specific crop, commodity, or location requires a pesticide review by the ANR Office of Pesticide Information and Coordination (OPIC). Allow at least two weeks for OPIC review. When possible, refer readers to already peer-reviewed resources such as UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines at ipm.ucanr.edu.
- Products that include details about specific regulations or compliance requirements need careful review to ensure accuracy and avoid liability. You can often reduce the need for agency or legal review by citing regulatory codes, quoting actual text from regulations, or linking to the relevant agency website. Consider adding a note such as: "Check with [agency name] for details. Local interpretations may vary."
Common Questions
When writing about controversial topics, acknowledge different points of view but maintain a non-advocate, science-based approach. Always have someone else review your work.
What qualifies as an appropriate peer reviewer? An appropriate reviewer is a colleague within UC ANR or another university, agency, or industry who has a research or extension program related to the topic. For volunteer organizations such as Master Gardener or 4-H, technical content should be reviewed by someone within UC ANR with relevant expertise. Review by volunteers alone may not be sufficient.
What should you do if you notice errors in an ANR product? First, approach the individual directly. If that is not possible or comfortable, contact the Communications Advisory Board (CAB) chair. The CAB chair will consult with the Associate Editor chair and the appropriate Associate Editor for fact-finding. If the concern is valid, they will contact the author to resolve the issue.
What counts as a peer-reviewed publication for your merit package? Publications that undergo only informal review as described here cannot be listed as peer-reviewed in your merit package. Peer-reviewed publications must undergo blind, formal review with the possibility of rejection, supervised by a journal editor or UC ANR Associate Editor.
For UC ANR volunteer organizations such as Master Gardeners, Master Food Preservers, and 4-H: the program coordinator should work with their County Director and an appropriate Advisor to develop written review guidelines for each type of product disseminated to the public. These guidelines should be approved by the appropriate Statewide Program Director before dissemination.
ANR Communications Advisory Board, 2014