Many recent news stories and editorial pieces from around the country are critical of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) draft bulletin on peer review, thereby maintaining pressure on the agency to either drastically alter the policy proposal or withdraw it entirely. OMB’s Data Quality Guidelines, the information policies that the peer review bulletin builds upon, received little media criticism or even attention during development. However, the peer review bulletin seems to be garnering much more interest, in part because so many scientists are rejecting this “scientific” policy. Recent negative articles include “Peer Review Plan Draws Criticism” in the Washington Post, “Politics, science like oil, water” an editorial in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “White House seeks control on health, safety” in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and “The White House vs. Science” in The Philadelphia Inquirer. These articles reflect objections and concerns voiced in the numerous public comments that OMB received on the peer review bulletin. As OMB Watch previously reported, the majority of those comments strongly opposed the peer review proposal. The separate deadlines for comments on the bulletin from the public and from federal agencies have closed. OMB’s next step will be to review the comments it received and decide how to respond and revise the bulletin. Many have called upon the agency to withdraw the bulletin, which while uncommon is well within OMB’s power. The increased media coverage makes it more difficult for the agency to dismiss the concerns and complaints raised as unfounded. The period for comments from the public and non-governmental organizations ended in mid-December and in a refreshing display of transparency OMB has provided all of those comments in an online docket. Comments on the peer review bulletin from federal agencies were collected in a separate process that ended Jan. 16. Unfortunately, it has been reported to OMB Watch from outside sources that OMB will not be allowing any access to the comments from government agencies. It appears OMB is claiming that these agency comments are protected from disclosure as inter-agency communications. Hopefully the media attention on this controversial and important issue will also help convince OMB to relent in its secrecy surrounding agency comments.