The government responders to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill today released its report on the "oil budget" tool used to calculate what happened to the spilled oil. Unlike the version of the report released on Aug. 4, this one comes peer-reviewed and with methodology.

As we noted in our earlier commentary, the August report was criticized for not disclosing the methods used to reach its conclusions. As a congressional staffer wrote at the time, "Essentially, nobody can check the math."

Critics also noted the administration's claims that the August report had been peer-reviewed by independent scientists turned out to be untrue. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administrator Jane Lubchenco acknowledged today, "That report was not peer-reviewed, and I was in error." The new report contains an appendix listing 14 peer reviewers and their responses to an earlier draft of the document – a welcome step to provide much-needed transparency.

Perversely, the peer review process delayed the disclosure of the study's methodology but not the conclusions. Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA), in an Aug. 19 hearing of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee, asked NOAA's Bill Lehr if the methodology would be released. Lehr replied that it would be – but only after completing a peer review process that could take several more months. The report released today is the result of that process.

Peer review is an important part of the scientific process, but it was a poor reason to withhold the report's methodology. If the administration was confident enough in the study's conclusions to release them publicly, then it should have been confident enough to release the methodology, too.

Quality control does take time, and there can be a value in releasing earlier drafts – particularly in a situation like the BP spill, where there was tremendous demand for timely information. But the tension between quality and promptness cannot be resolved by publicly trumpeting conclusions while their very basis is still under review and hidden from the public.

Science isn't based on assertion: it's based on disclosed methods that others can examine and critique. The public shouldn't have to take the government at its word. The administration should seriously consider the Oil Spill Commission's suggestion that government study groups release more of their underlying methodology and data.