Identify and register local reviewers

The local review process engages individuals with relevant expertise and knowledge to review and validate assessment results. Local reviewers must meet both of the following criteria:

1. Subject matter expertise: Local reviewers should possess expertise in the topics they are invited to review. They must be capable of evaluating the quality of data and methods used to derive the results related to those topics. Expertise may stem from academic, professional, and/or practical experience.

2. Landscape knowledge: Local reviewers should have sufficient familiarity with the landscape to assess the accuracy of results in the context of actual conditions. This knowledge can be obtained through living or working in the landscape, or by other means, such as conducting research pertaining to it.

To validate their qualifications, documentation such as CVs, resumes, course certifications, or other suitable evidence showing their expertise must be uploaded to the platform.

[Insert screenshot of local reviewer registration/qualification documentation upload]

Local reviewers are expected to participate in an individual capacity; they are not expected to represent, or be limited by, the views of any organization or group with which they may be affiliated.

It is also important to set clear expectations for how much time local reviewers should spend evaluating the landscape assessment results to ensure their work aligns with the assessment team's timelines.

Requirements for local reviewer selection

• Number of reviewers: LandScale requires at least one local reviewer per indicator but recommends a minimum of two for each. The assessment team may invite additional reviewers if desired. A single local reviewer may evaluate multiple indicators across different goals or pillars, provided they meet the required criteria for expertise and landscape knowledge for each indicator.

• Diversity of expertise: The value of the local review is increased when it facilitates triangulation between multiple sources of expertise. Therefore, the collective set of reviewers across all goals must be representative of at least two distinct stakeholder groups, such as academia, government, NGOs, community and producer representatives, consultancies, or other relevant groups.

Compensation for local reviewers

The assessment team may choose to offer prospective local reviewers a reasonable stipend to compensate for their time, aligned with local salary standards. Stipends are optional and should be agreed upon by the assessment team and the reviewers. LandScale does not participate in the negotiation or payment of these stipends.

The decision to offer compensation should prioritize minimizing the likelihood of bias, whether reviewers are paid or volunteer their time. Offering a stipend may improve participation and timeliness of the review. In all cases, the assessment team should communicate the importance of providing unbiased and candid feedback, including the identification of any inaccuracies or limitations in the draft assessment.

Criteria for independence of local reviewers

The independence of the local review process is crucial to ensuring objectivity and credibility in the assessment results. To maintain independence, the following criteria must be observed when selecting local reviewers:

Criteria	Considerations
Non-involvement in the assessment team	Local reviewers must not be members of the assessment team. They may, however, be employees or affiliates of an organization represented on the assessment team.
Separation from data sources	Local reviewers must not be affiliated with the organization or entity that owns or collected the data used in the indicator being reviewed. For example, if agricultural production data from the Ministry of Agriculture were used for Goal 4.1 (Promote regenerative, agricultural, agroforestry, and tree production systems), no affiliate of that ministry may review this goal. However, a ministry employee with expertise in a different area, such as water resources, may serve as a local reviewer for a goal unrelated to their employer’s data contribution, such as Goal 1.3 (Maintain and enhance ecosystem services).
Conflict of interest disclosure	Local reviewers must not have conflicts of interest that could impede, or appear to impede, their ability to conduct an objective review. Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed before the reviewer participates in the local review. The assessment team will evaluate disclosed conflicts to determine if they are disqualifying.

Once local reviewers are selected and invited to participate, they must review and complete the LandScale Conflict of Interest Declaration for Local Reviewers to confirm they understand and adhere to the independence requirements. These declarations must be uploaded by the assessment team as supporting documentation in the assessment, enabling the LandScale team to access and review them.

[Insert screenshot of Conflict of Interest Declarations uploaded to platform]

Balancing transparency and confidentiality in local reviews

Transparency in the local review process enhances objectivity and bolsters the credibility of the final published assessment results. However, LandScale recognizes the importance of confidentiality in fostering candid feedback. In some situations, local reviewers may need to remain anonymous to avoid risks to their personal or professional well-being—particularly if their comments challenge results or data sources linked to powerful stakeholders.

To balance the interests of transparency and personal protection, the identification of local reviewers and their feedback will follow these guidelines:

• Disclosure of reviewer names: By default, the final assessment report will list the names of all local reviewers alongside the LandScale indicator(s) they reviewed. While reviewers may request anonymity, LandScale requests that they only do so if they believe disclosure poses a risk to their personal or professional well-being. In such cases, their role will be listed as 'anonymous reviewer' in the final report, and their name will not be publicly disclosed.

• Reviewer identification for internal purposes: The identities of all reviewers—anonymous or not—will be known to both the assessment team and the LandScale team. This ensures compliance with reviewer selection criteria. These teams must agree not to disclose a reviewer’s identity or identifying information publicly, except in the case of non-anonymous reviews where the reviewer’s name is published as described above.

• Attribution of feedback: The assessment and LandScale teams will track which reviewers provided specific feedback on draft results. Feedback attribution will remain confidential and will not be published or shared with external parties.

• Publication of feedback in final report: The final assessment report will include a non-attributed summary of all comments received during the local review process. This summary will detail how feedback was addressed in the final assessment results and report, ensuring transparency without compromising reviewer confidentiality.