









































October 2017 Volume  2

THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF PEER REVIEW IN 
HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Katherine Hirono, MPH; Kristin Raab, MPH, MLA; Arthur Wendel, MD, MPH; Tim Choi, MPH; Tina Yuen, MPH, MCP, 
CPH; Joseph Schuchter, DrPH; Florence Fulk, PhD

Abstract: 

Background: 
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.

Methods: 
To explore the possible value of peer review in HIA, an expert panel was convened at the 2013 HIA of the Amer-
icas Workshop, and an online survey was used to query HIA practitioners regarding their experience with and 
motivation for HIA peer review. 

Results:
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. 

Conclusion: 
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.

i

Introduction

In the past 30 years, health impact assessment (HIA) 
has developed into a tool used in many sectors all over 
the world (Vohra, 2007). Countries such as Australia, 
England, Thailand, and the Netherlands have integrat-
ed HIAs into formal decision-making processes. In the 

United States (US), although initiation of HIA practice 
occurred later than in other parts of the world, practice 
has grown 10-fold in the past decade from 27 com-
pleted HIAs in 2007 (Dannenberg; Dannenberg et al., 
2008) to 407 completed or in progress HIAs in 2016 
(The Health Impact Project, 2016). The diverse and 
growing practices in HIA in the US have called atten-



Challenges and Opportunities of  Peer Review Hirono; Raab; Wendel; Choi; Yuen; Schuchter; Fulk

2

tion to the need to improve overall HIA application 
(National Research Council, 2011). One potential area 
to advance HIA practice in the US (and potentially 
internationally) is through better consideration of the 
use of peer review.

Peer review is the evaluation of a process or prod-
uct by experts in the field to maintain or enhance the 
quality of the process or product in that field (Smith, 
2006). Peer review plays a critical role within the sci-
entific community to improve the quality and applica-
bility of research and evidence (Abelson, 1990). While 
peer review often occurs after submission of research 
manuscripts for publication or for proposals for fund-
ing, other types of formal and informal peer review 
processes are used at different stages of research 
(Solomon, 2007). These other types include collegial 
review of products before they are submitted and 
reviews of outlines to ensure that a proposed product 
is well-designed. Some institutions may require that 
reports and other documents undergo internal review 
prior to being shared externally. Though peer review 
is considered necessary for maintaining scientific 
standards and quality control, it is subject to its own 
set of challenges such as bias, complexity, and a lack 
of understanding of its overall effectiveness (Gold-
beck-Wood, 1999).

Peer review has been conducted in environmental im-
pact assessment (EIA), and though it is not required, it 
is a recommended practice (Office of Management and 
Budget, 2004). In EIA, peer review tends to focus on 
the technical quality of assessment standards, methods 
and results in order to ensure attainment of appropri-
ate levels of scientific rigor (Beanlands et al., 1983). 
In some EIA processes, peer review is conducted by 
the contracted agency by specialists not involved in 
the work. The report authors respond to the reviewers’ 
comments and make necessary changes to the scientif-
ic report. In some cases, the peer reviewers’ comments 
and the authors response may become part of the pub-
lic record (Klamathrestoration.gov). Given that the fo-
cus of peer review in EIA is to ensure scientific integ-

rity, it is recommended that peer review be conducted 
at the inception and design stages, though given the 
practical complexities of environmental assessment, 
it is not clear to what extent this is actually completed 
(Beanlands et al., 1983; Chaker et al., 2006). It is also 
argued that as an applied science, EIA should conform 
to the same rules and standards that govern scientific 
research and therefore EIA reports should be subject to 
peer review (Cashmore, 2004).

Incorporating peer review in HIAs may be one strate-
gy that can help to improve the quality and usefulness 
of HIAs. Some guidance exists, particularly for peer 
review at the end stage of the HIA (Fredsgaard et al., 
2009; Vohra, 2005), however there has been little 
research to date on to what extent, and in what man-
ner, peer review can be used to improve HIAs. Given 
that HIAs must be conducted within policymaking 
cycles (Harris et al., 2014), it is unclear how peer 
review processes can account for timing restrictions 
and negotiating of interests from multiple stakeholders 
within diverse HIA projects. Based on a practitioners 
workshop and subsequent survey, this paper explores 
the challenges and opportunities presented by using 
peer review to support HIAs. We examine the current 
use of peer review by HIA practitioners primarily in 
the US, the perceived value of peer review to the HIA 
process, and provide a typology of peer review prac-
tice in HIA. 

Methods 

The development of an HIA peer review typology 
was initiated by a working group convened at the 
2013 HIA of the Americas Workshop (changed to 
the HIA Practitioner Workshop), a meeting for HIA 
practitioners to discuss the state of the field and plan 
steps for future improvements. Workshop partici-
pants (n=11) self-selected to attend the working group 
entitled “Peer Review of HIA.” All participants had 
previously been involved in one or more HIA and had 
some level of experience with peer review in the HIA 
process. The workshop was facilitated by two of the 



Challenges and Opportunities of  Peer Review Hirono; Raab; Wendel; Choi; Yuen; Schuchter; Fulk

3

paper authors (KR and TC) and incorporated an open format to discuss the potential role of peer review in HIA 
practice in the US. Most of the paper authors attended the workshop. During the conference, the working group 
discussed the potential range of peer review which might be applied to HIA. Additionally, participants described 
the positive and negative factors of applying peer review across a range of HIA typologies. Participants also 
looked at the HIA process (see Figure 1) and identified at which steps peer review could be beneficial. 

Following the meeting, the authors designed and distributed an online survey to investigate the experiences of 
practitioners with peer review of HIA projects (see Box 1). The survey consisted of eight questions designed to 
gauge the motivations of HIA practitioners to engage in peer review, the perceived value of peer review, and the 
broad and multiple practices of peer review within HIA. The authors did not strictly define peer review in the 
survey so that a full range of experiences with peer review, both formal and informal, could be captured. The 

1. SCREENING
Determine whether an HIA is needed and likely to be useful.
2. SCOPING
Develop a plan for the HIA, including identification of potential health risks and benefits.
3. ASSESSMENT
Describe the baseline health of affected communities and assess the potential impacts of the decision.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Develop practical solutions that can be implemented within the political, economic or technical limitations 
of the project or policy being assessed.
5. REPORTING
Disseminate the findings to decision makers, affected communities and other stakeholders.
6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitor the changes in health risk factors and evaluate the efficacy of the measures that are implemented 
and the HIA process as a whole. 

Box 1. Survey Questions
1. What type of  agency do you work for?

a. Federal/state/local government
b. Consulting organization (for-profit)
c. Community/non-profit organization
d. Educational institution

2. List some of  the HIAs where you were involved with peer review.
3. Based on your general experiences of  using peer review in HIA, indicate how much you agree with the 
following statements: “Overall, peer review was helpful for improving the quality of  the HIAs”

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Not sure
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree

Figure 1: The Steps of HIA



Challenges and Opportunities of  Peer Review Hirono; Raab; Wendel; Choi; Yuen; Schuchter; Fulk

4

survey was conducted between May and August 2013, and was advertised to the HIA practitioner community 
through state and national organizations’ networks mainly in the US, including HIA listservs and blogs. Solic-
itation for the survey was conducted using convenience sampling and is not necessarily representative of the 
diverse range of HIA practitioners.  Authors used basic descriptive statistics and a qualitative coding scheme to 
analyze open-ended responses. 

Results

Sample
A total of 26 HIA practitioners responded to the sur-
vey.  Respondents represented a variety of organiza-
tions although the majority were affiliated with gov-
ernmental agencies (n=12) (see Table 1). The majority 
of respondents were from the US.

Respondents’ experience of peer review
The roles of respondents in the peer review process 
varied but generally fell into three categories: 

• HIA project lead – oversees the project and 
drafting of the HIA report and may have received 
a peer review on their HIA;
• Technical reviewer – has expertise in a given 
field and reviews part of the assessment; and 

4. Based on your general experiences of using peer review in HIA, indicate how much you agree with the 
following statements: “I think HIAs could benefit from a more formal or standardized peer review pro-
cess”

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Not sure
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree

5. What has been your role in the peer review process?
6. Briefly describe your experience overall with the HIA peer review process: Having an HIA reviewed 
(skip, if not applicable.)
7. Briefly describe your experience overall with the HIA peer review process: Reviewing an HIA (skip, if 
not applicable)
8. If peer review added value to the HIAs, please specify how.

Organizational Affiliation Number of Respondents (n=26)
Community/non-profit organization 5
For-profit consulting organization 3
Educational institution 6
Federal, state, or local government 12

Table 1: Survey respondent characteristics



Challenges and Opportunities of  Peer Review Hirono; Raab; Wendel; Choi; Yuen; Schuchter; Fulk

5

• General editor – provides non-technical revi-
sions to the report. 

Several respondents stated that they performed multi-
ple roles and respondents listed “other” roles, includ-
ing moderator (conducts peer review process), in the 
peer review process (see Table 2).

Respondents described several different types of peer 
review: 

1. Technical - review by “qualified statisticians 
and scientists” for “technical accuracy;” 
2. Process - review by “HIA experts” to “ensure 
all steps of HIA were addressed;” 

3. General - review for “identification of over-
sights, corrections,” “general edits,” and “flow 
and readability” and; 
4. Political - review for “what in the document 
seemed biased,” to avoid “hot buttons,” and “un-
necessarily alienating the local audience.” 

Some of these types of review may be interpreted 
more as a type of technical assistance, rather than 
traditional peer review, however the authors have 
included all types of peer review in order to reflect the 
respondent’s perception of the meaning of peer review 
in HIA. 

Role in peer review process Number of respondentsa  (n=29)
HIA Poject lead 16
General editor: identifies and recommends technical 
corrections in parts of HIA

11

Technical reviewer: identifies and recommends tech-
nical corrections in part of HIA

9

Moderator: conducts peer review process 3
Other 5
No response 1

Table 2: Respondents’ role in HIA peer review

aRespondents could report more than one role

Table 3: Number of respondents (and %) who agreed or disagreed with statements. (n=26)

Questions Strongly 
disagree

Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly 
agree

Peer review was 
helpful for improv-
ing the quality of the 
HIAs

1 (4%) 0 (0%) 5 (19%) 11 (42%) 9 (35%)

HIAs could benefit 
from a more formal 
or standardized peer 
review process

4 (15%) 2 (8%) 5 (19%) 10 (38%) 5 (19%)



Challenges and Opportunities of  Peer Review Hirono; Raab; Wendel; Choi; Yuen; Schuchter; Fulk

6

Perceived value and challenges of peer review
Although the overwhelming majority (n=20) agreed 
or strongly agreed that peer review was helpful for 
improving the quality of the HIA, fewer respondents 
agreed (n=15) that HIAs would benefit from a more 
formal or standardized peer review process, and six 
participants disagreed that a standardized peer review 
process would benefit HIAs (see Table 3).

Generally, respondents described peer review as 
beneficial or positive. Respondents commented that 
peer review identified needed corrections or missing 
information. Respondents stated that it also validated 
“HIA leaders’ concerns” and provided further opportu-
nity for answering questions. In addition, participants 
felt that peer review helped to identify additional data 
sources, legal citations, and publications to consider 
or include, and to clarify language and framing of the 
report. Respondents identified peer review as helping 
to refine logic models and pathway diagrams, and 
providing useful feedback on recommendations. They 
highlighted that having the HIA reviewed by statis-
ticians, scientists, and other qualified reviewers was 
crucial to ensuring the technical accuracy of the HIA, 
the alignment with methodological best practices, and 
the relevance of recommendations.  Respondents also 
reported that peer review helped to produce a more 
credible product, to increase confidence of HIA staff 
in their findings, and to present the information clearly 
and effectively.

Respondents also reported that peer review aided 
incorporation of perspectives of different stakehold-
ers within the HIA process. They stated that diverse 
viewpoints of people with dissimilar skill sets add 
value by providing input and perspectives on issues 
not apparent to those leading the HIA project. Respon-
dents suggested that diversity also adds credibility to 
the analyses, findings, and recommendations, making 
the HIA stronger overall. 

Respondents stated that the timing of peer review was 
important.  One respondent commented that retrospec-

tive reviews of finished HIAs do little good; the key 
to an effective review is to engage the reviewer in the 
HIA process early enough to address issues and make 
changes. Another respondent stated that incorporating 
peer review in the early stages of HIA helped to avert 
complications that would have been more problematic 
later in the process. 

Respondents identified several challenges to peer 
review. Some found that time limitations impeded ad-
dressing and incorporating feedback. One respondent 
mentioned that peer review could add value, but could 
also increase the time and resources needed to com-
plete an HIA and present a different set of barriers and 
constraints for the project. Another respondent stated 
that HIAs are often conducted under tight deadlines by 
already busy staff, and although reviewers add credi-
bility by identifying realities about the HIA being con-
ducted, HIA staff may not be able to adequately react 
to constructive comments. Respondents suggested that 
peer reviewers need to be matched to the work based 
on their own specific talents, skills, or time constraints. 
One respondent noted that the benefit of the review is 
highly dependent on the reviewer.

Inadequate communication between the reviewer and 
those leading the HIA was also mentioned as a barrier. 
One respondent found peer review to be useful but in-
dicated that the lack of communication between the re-
viewers and the HIA team can lead to misunderstand-
ings. Peer reviewers of journal article submissions are 
usually seen as gatekeepers, this respondent stated, but 
HIA peer review needs to be less anonymous to ensure 
that feedback is useful. The respondent suggested that 
reviewers act more as mentors. 

To address some of the challenges of conducting peer 
review of HIAs, respondents described the need to 
clarify the purpose of the peer review, the type of 
review (e.g., general or technical), the level of review, 
and the timeframe for comments. Respondents sug-
gested providing parameters or instructions to review-
ers, such as specific questions, concerns, or content 



Challenges and Opportunities of  Peer Review Hirono; Raab; Wendel; Choi; Yuen; Schuchter; Fulk

7

areas for the reviewers to consider. They noted that 
providing such details seemed to help manage the 
work of the peer reviewers, the expectations of the 
HIA project team, and the goals of the peer review 

within the constraints of the overall HIA project.

Discussion

Table 4: Comparison of Peer Review Factors for Traditional Journal Articles and HIA

Factors Traditional, peer review journal 
protocols

HIA peer review (lots of variation)

Primary role of peer review Gatekeeper of quality Conversational, open
Peer review lead Journal editor HIA coordinator
Peer reviewers Field experts selected by editor General HIA experts, technical field 

and community experts
Anonymity Single- or double-blinded; allows 

review with less identity bias
Open but varies

Time of review At completion of final draft Varies: process (step-specific review), 
general review

Time and cost Varies: typically no cost to applicant, 
only publication expense if accepted

Varies: depending on availability of 
funds and reviewers

Transparency for feedback Reviewer identity withheld Varies: the public may have open 
access to comments and review, and 
agency affiliation

Opportunities for information 
exchange

Limited (communication usually 
routed through editorial board)

Varies: may be desirable in most cases

Practitioners often viewed the peer review they re-
ceived as helpful but were less supportive of a stan-
dardized process. Additionally, they described an ap-
plication of peer review to HIA that would be different 
than the application to a journal article (see Table 4). 
For example, the review process should be sensitive to 
the timeliness of the HIA, the reviewer might act more 
as a mentor rather than a gatekeeper, and different 
types of review could be applied, such as a technical 
review or a general review. 
Based on the open-ended questions querying practi-
tioners about their perceived motivation, value and use 
of peer review in HIA, we found that peer review can 
address many aspects of an HIA:

• Process (e.g., did the HIA follow the steps of 

HIA, did the HIA involve significant stakeholder 
input throughout the process).
• Analyses (e.g., were quantitative and qualita-
tive analyses performed according to best scien-
tific practices in their respective fields, are the 
analyses transparent and replicable).
• Recommendations (e.g., are the recommenda-
tions based on the analyses, are the recommenda-
tions politically feasible).
• Reports (e.g., was the final report comprehen-
sive, was the final product written in a format 
understandable to and useable by the appropriate 
audiences to inform the decision-making pro-
cess). 



Challenges and Opportunities of  Peer Review Hirono; Raab; Wendel; Choi; Yuen; Schuchter; Fulk

8

Our findings highlight several key considerations for 
integrating peer review into HIA practice. First, almost 
all the respondents to the survey reported that peer 
review, when performed early in the process, when 
timely and cognizant of resource constraints, and 
when targeted to the particular step and needs of the 
HIA, is a helpful practice to improve the quality and 
applicability of an HIA. When feasible, peer review 
should begin as early as possible in the HIA process 

and be incorporated in all steps. 

Second, our findings indicate that peer review in HIAs 
should be fit-for-purpose. Because the HIA process is 
complex and can involve different disciplines and ex-
pertise that are subject to improvement by review, peer 
review should be conducted in a way that is flexible 
and appropriate to the needs of the individual HIA. 

In order to represent the different types of peer review 
being used in HIA practice, and when they are best ap-
plied, we propose a typology of HIA peer review (see 
Figure 2). The typology includes process, technical, 
general, and political peer review. Each of the types of 
peer review provide different information to improve 
the HIA, can be applied at different stages in the HIA 
process, and may require a different reviewer depend-
ing on their individual skill set.

Process review involves ensuring that the HIA per-
forms all steps in a manner consistent with published 
HIA guidelines and best practices. Process review 
could also help to ensure the inclusion of equity con-
siderations in each step of an HIA. A process reviewer 

could draw on their experience as an HIA practitioner 
and be well versed in the many practice guides and 
standards available. 

Technical review ensures that the qualitative and 
quantitative data analyses were performed according 
to best practices and applicable scientific standards, 
and that the level of evidence and uncertainty for the 
predictions was stated clearly. The qualifications of the 
technical reviewer will vary according to the decision 
and health issues being assessed in the HIA. 

General review includes general editing of documents 
and can include review related to best methods of 
communicating results to appropriate audiences. A 

Figure 2: Typology of HIA Peer Review



Challenges and Opportunities of  Peer Review Hirono; Raab; Wendel; Choi; Yuen; Schuchter; Fulk

9

general reviewer has editing skills, communication 
knowledge, and familiarity with the HIA process. 

Political review helps to understand and negotiate 

the political space in which the HIA occurs. This is 
especially important for politically sensitive HIAs, 
often the norm rather than the exception. Politics can 
influence whether the HIA is undertaken, which health 

Table 5: Types of review suggested at each HIA Step.

Type of review
HIA Step Process review Technical review General review Political review
1. Screening X X X
2. Scoping X X X X
3. Assessment X X X
4. Recommendations X X X X
5. Reporting X X X
6. Monitoring/evaluation X X

issues are addressed (e.g., scoping and pathways), the 
recommendations, and the reporting of the HIA. A po-
litical reviewer has a firm understanding of the politics 
and context surrounding the HIA and provides insight 
and advice to the HIA practitioner to ensure that the 
HIA recommendations are salient to the decision  
makers.

The four types of review can be applied at various 
stages of the HIA process (Table 5).

A peer review typology should consider the HIA steps 
as well as the different typologies of practice (Har-
ris-Roxas et al., 2011). The type of review should be 
expanded or minimized according to time and resourc-
es in accordance with the type of HIA (rapid, compre-
hensive, etc.). For example, minimally-resourced and 
time-constrained HIAs might only have the capacity 
for one reviewer, who may perform several types of 
review at different stages of the HIA. To facilitate and 
expand peer review opportunities, a pool of potential 
HIA reviewers could be drawn from identified authors 
of HIA reports or from existing HIA communities of 
practice, such as the Society of Practitioners of Health 
Impact Assessment (SOPHIA, n.d.) . 

In summary, several key considerations are important 
for conducting peer review in HIA. 

• Timing and coordination: Conducting peer re-
view early within the appropriate stage of an HIA 
helps suggested changes and recommendations 
to be meaningfully addressed. Reviewing an HIA 
after it is completed may do little to improve 
the HIA itself. The HIA coordinator or project 
lead may also need to build in time to possibly 
respond to or address peer reviewers' recommen-
dations. 
• Reviewer fit: The value of the review is highly 
dependent on the reviewer. Peer reviewers should 
be matched with the right type of review needed 
based on their specific skills and availability. 
For example, if a technical review is needed, the 
peer reviewer would be well versed or have had 
experience in conducting the methodology used 
in the analysis. 
• Peer review scope: Clarifying the purpose and 
scope of the peer review is essential. Providing 
parameters or instructions for reviewers – such 
as specific questions to consider, areas of the 
HIA in need of attention, time constraints of the 



Challenges and Opportunities of  Peer Review Hirono; Raab; Wendel; Choi; Yuen; Schuchter; Fulk

10

project, and type of review (i.e., general, techni-
cal, process, or political) – will help to increase 
the usefulness of the peer review and ensure that 
the issues of greatest concern are most likely to 
be responded to and addressed within the given 
time frame of the project. 
• Communication: HIA peer review benefits 
from an open dialogue between the HIA lead or 
project team and the peer reviewers. Good com-
munication will decrease the likelihood that peer 
review recommendations will be misunderstood, 
will increase the usefulness of the comments, 
and will increase the potential for the peer review 
to improve the HIA by clarifying any points of 
concern or suggestions.

Limitations

Our study and findings are subject to several limita-
tions. Initial input from practitioners was obtained 
only from participants at the HIA of the Americas 
Workshop, and survey information from only a subset 
of (mostly US) HIA practitioners. Given that most 
respondents were from the US, the results cannot 
be taken to reflect the views of practitioners in other 
international settings.  However, while our survey 
was relatively small, we believe it illustrates a range 
of useful perspectives on an evolving HIA practice. 
Respondents were solicited from a pool of experi-
enced practitioners, and the working group and au-
thors of this article also have a diverse range of HIA 
experience. Still, due to the nature of the convenience 
sampling, and the small number of respondents, we 

may have excluded other experiences and perspectives 
on HIA peer review. Additionally, the survey was only 
sent out to HIA practitioners, and not more broadly to 
those conducting other forms of impact assessment. 
While the focus on HIA practitioners helped to eluci-
date HIA-specific issues and opportunities for peer re-
view, other insight related to peer review within other 
impact assessment may have been missed. Moreover, 
the term “peer review” could be interpreted by respon-
dents differently; different potential interpretations 
were apparent from discussions at the initial working 
group meeting and survey responses. Future research 
might better define peer review and address similar 
questions in a more representative sample. Nonethe-
less, we believe our findings highlight several opportu-
nities for improving the practice of HIA through peer 
review. 

Conclusion

Peer review in the context of HIA can be both an end-
stage quality control measure and an iterative quality 
improvement process used throughout multiple steps 
of the HIA. HIA provides timely and valid evidence 
amid myriad scientific and political uncertainties. 
Peer review of HIA may be an opportunity to support 
the legitimacy, acceptance and utility of the research 
findings, thereby increasing the value of HIA in deci-
sion-making. However, further incorporation of peer 
review in HIA will need to consider the potential pit-
falls and criticisms of peer review practice (i.e. bias), 
the types of practitioners that can conduct peer review 
(who precisely is considered a “peer”) and how this 
practice can be applicable in international settings. 



Challenges and Opportunities of  Peer Review Hirono; Raab; Wendel; Choi; Yuen; Schuchter; Fulk

11

References

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.

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. 

Fredsgaard, M., Cave, B., & Bond, A. (2009). A review package for health impact assessment reports of development 
projects. Leeds: Ben Cave Associates.

Goldbeck-Wood, S. (1999). Evidence on peer review--scientific quality control or smokescreen? British Medical Journal, 
318(7175), 44. 

Harris-Roxas, B., & Harris, E. (2011). Differing forms, differing purposes: A typology of health impact assessment. Envi-
ronmental 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-in-
formed/secretarial-determination/role-of-science/peer-review-process

National Research Council. (2011). Improving health in the United States: the role of health impact assessment. Washing-
ton, 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.

Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the royal society of medi-
cine, 99(4), 178-182. 

Solomon, D. J. (2007). The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the information age. Journal of Electronic Pub-
lishing, 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. (2016). Completed and in progress HIAs 2016. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/da-
ta-visualizations/2015/hia-map: The Health Impact Project and Centres for Disease Control and Prevention Healthy 
Community Design Initiative.

Vohra, S. (2005). Integrating health into environmental impact assessment. Middlesex: Living Knowledge.
Vohra, S. (2007). International perspective on health impact assessment in urban settings. New South Wales Public Health 

Bulletin, 18(10), 152-154. 



Challenges and Opportunities of  Peer Review Hirono; Raab; Wendel; Choi; Yuen; Schuchter; Fulk

12

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Katherine Hirono, MPH
Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation
UNSW Sydney
A member of  the Ingham Institute
Locked Bag 7103
Liverpool BC, NDW, 1871
Australia
k.hirono@unsw.edu.au

DISCLAIMERS:
The findings and conclusions in this article are those of  the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of  the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention or the US Environmental Protection Agency.

CHIA Staff:

Editor-in-Chief  
Cynthia Stone, DrPH, RN, Professor, Richard M. Fairbanks School of  Public Health, Indiana University-Purdue University 
Indianapolis

Journal Manager 
Angela Evertsen, BA, Richard M. Fairbanks School of  Public Health, Indiana University-Purdue University 
Indianapolis

Chronicles of  Health Impact Assessment Vol. 2 (2017) DOI: 10.18060/21492
© 2017 Author(s): Hirono, K.; Raab, K.; Wendel, A.; Choi, T.; Yuen, T.; Schuchter, J.; Fulk, F. 
       This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License


