The review, organized by Britain’s InterAcademy Council, was requested at a meeting of the United Nations Environment Program in February, and the findings are due in August.

As you may recall, the panel found itself in hot water about six months ago when critics accused it of scientific sloppiness. They also accused the panel’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, of conflicts of interest because he served on some corporate boards.

Yet many noted that the most serious charges originated with a camp that denies that global warming is even under way, even though mainstream scientists agree that human-caused climate change is a reality.

Still, the climate panel has apologized for a significant error in its latest report, issued in 2007: an errant figure on the rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers that was not supported by scientific research.

Dr. Pachauri, meanwhile, hired the accounting firm KPMG to review his personal finances and that of TERI, the Delhi-based research institute he directs. “That has cleared me of any financial malfeasance,” he said in a recent phone interview.

Still, the controversy has damaged the institution’s credibility. Even some admirers of the I.P.C.C. suggest that it could make some improvements in its operating procedures.

Among the big questions: What are the standards of evidence used in determining what makes it in to the final report? How are the hundreds of scientists who contribute to the report selected to make sure it reflects diverse viewpoints? Should a new, clear-cut financial conflict-of-interest policy be adopted by the panel now that there is money to be made from climate-related pursuits, like so-called carbon trading?

“The I.P.C.C. has grown in importance, and it’s a very good time and a good opportunity to look at its management structure and its processes,” Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chairman of the InterAcademy Council, told BBC News as the panel convened on Friday.