Uploaded July 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
This webinar, co-hosted by the Ecological Society of America and the American Geophysical Union, focused on how U.S.-based scientists can support IPBES by participating as expert reviewers for two currently open assessments: the Second Global Assessment and the Spatial Planning and Connectivity Assessment. Pamela McElwee, Doug Beard, Demian Willette, and others explained the purpose and structure of IPBES, the importance of external expert review for scientific rigor and transparency, and the process for registering and submitting comments through the IPBES website. They emphasized that anyone with relevant expertise, including early career researchers and those with indigenous and local knowledge, could participate as reviewers, and that comments should be substantive, clear, and submitted using the official Excel template.
The discussion also covered the benefits of reviewing for both the scientific community and individual careers, and highlighted the absence of an official U.S. government review process, making the scientific community’s involvement even more crucial. The session concluded with a Q&A addressing practical questions about the review process and encouraged continued engagement with IPBES and similar initiatives.
This webinar, co-hosted by the Ecological Society of America and the American Geophysical Union, focused on how U.S.-based scientists can support IPBES by participating as expert reviewers for two currently open assessments: the Second Global Assessment and the Spatial Planning and Connectivity Assessment. Pamela McElwee, Doug Beard, Demian Willette, and others explained the purpose and structure of IPBES, the importance of external expert review for scientific rigor and transparency, and the process for registering and submitting comments through the IPBES website. They emphasized that anyone with relevant expertise, including early career researchers and those with indigenous and local knowledge, could participate as reviewers, and that comments should be substantive, clear, and submitted using the official Excel template.
The discussion also covered the benefits of reviewing for both the scientific community and individual careers, and highlighted the absence of an official U.S. government review process, making the scientific community’s involvement even more crucial. The session concluded with a Q&A addressing practical questions about the review process and encouraged continued engagement with IPBES and similar initiatives.
