This page provides a summary of information related to potential issues with Division Review.

The RPM Describes the following for Review of Scientific and Technical Publications:

E. REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS
LBNL values the role of peer review in ensuring the integrity of scientific research. Researchers are expected to seek ongoing internal review of their work before publication. It is expected that employees will adhere to the highest ethical standards in their publishing, including those detailed in the University’s Statement of Ethical Values, especially as regards to the integrity and originality of work, and the recognition of the contributions of colleagues. Researchers must ensure that any information of a non-publishable nature (such as that protected by human subjects protocol or a nondisclosure agreement) is excluded from publication. Per Section 5.03 of the RPM, researchers must identify potentially patentable discoveries to the Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Management prior to any form of publication.

All publications must be reviewed within a division before receiving an LBNL/PUB or LBID number. Each division will ensure that (1) a reasonable scientific process has been followed, (2) papers include proper crediting of affiliations and acknowledgments as required by DOE, and (3) any other requirements indicated by their Division Director have been met. Divisional procedures must ensure that the review is fair and unbiased, and that freedom of scientific inquiry is not unfairly constrained.



Review of publications by colleagues is a key part of the research enterprise; however, it is atypical to find this policy in a University environment. As such, policy developers in Divisions must be particularly wary of two key areas:

Prohibited Forms of Review:

LBNL conducts open, fundamental research. Pre-publication review as a condition of a grant, CRADA, or other contract - as well as internal pre-publication review for sensitive information, potentially removes key export control protections and violates University of California Policy. In particular, it makes it appear that LBNL is engaged in work which it no longer engages in (that is, research not intended for the public domain).

As such, Division Review policies may not explicitly or implicitly require a review for sensitive information, broadly defined. This does not prohibit review for patentability, to ensure the protection of human subjects or personally identifiable information, or for any of the reasons found in the text of the RPM. University of California policy describes this more fully:

Do not accept publication controls or access/dissemination restrictions (such as approval requirements for use of foreign nationals), enter into ‘secrecy agreements’, or otherwise agree to withhold results in research projects conducted at the University or that involve University facilities, students, or staff.

More from UCOP here

We emphasize this here primarily for those employees who may have come from other multi-program Labs where these exemptions were not sought. Note that there are a small number of limited exceptions to this issue, which are authorized by the Laboratory Director. If your project has been granted an exemption from a prepublication review clause (that is, a prepublication review requirement has been accepted by the Director), you will have been made aware of your requirements to protect the information during the project approval stage. If you know that you are working under an export controlled program, approved by the Director, and you do not know how to review, contact the export control officer.

Potential for Unfair, Biased, or Improper Review:

Publication review has the potential to act as means of unfairly preventing members of the community from attempting to publish matter that another colleague feels should not be published. Freedom of scientific inquiry is protected by the LBNL Contract at Clause H.16:

In order to further the goals of the Laboratory and the national interest, it is agreed by the Parties that the scientific and engineering personnel at the Laboratory shall be accorded the rights of publication or other dissemination of research, and participation in open debate and in scientific, educational, or professional meetings or conferences, subject to the limitations included in technology transfer agreements and such other limitations as may be required by the terms of this Contract.  Nothing in this clause is intended to alter the obligations of the Parties to protect classified or unclassified controlled nuclear information as provided by law.

The potential for unfair treatment of research work has been widely recognized as a concern with tenure programs at research universities. As such, the University's position is clear that review of colleagues work must account for the quality of the scholarship, and not the relative agreement of the reviewers with the work itself.

While not a governing document for Laboratory employees (except joint faculty in their role as faculty), the Academic Personnel Manual provides useful guidance on this concern. In addition, the University's Statement of Ethical Values provides further guidance.

Divisions structuring review processes should consider the development of an appeal process, and/or specify the use of multiple reviewers. Finally, normal channels of appeal (Division Management, Ombuds, etc) are available to researchers who believe their work has been improperly evaluated.

(eof)