Difference between revisions of "Review Process"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (11 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
| − | + | Profiles are reviewed/approved at [[QIBA Profile Stages|each stage]]: | |
| − | * The review | + | * The review/approval steps are the same, but the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria differ]]''' |
| − | |||
| − | Remember, this is the QA point. It doesn't have to be perfect. '''It does have to be good'''. | + | Remember, this is the QA point for your work. It doesn't have to be perfect. '''It does have to be good'''. |
==Review (Biomarker Committee)== | ==Review (Biomarker Committee)== | ||
The following review process is strongly recommended, but Biomarker Committees are not required to follow this specific process. | The following review process is strongly recommended, but Biomarker Committees are not required to follow this specific process. | ||
| − | * | + | * ''Editor'' of the Profile requests content review once they feel work on the current stage has been completed |
| − | * Biomarker Committee assigns/'''recruits reviewers''' for Profile sections | + | * ''Biomarker Committee'' assigns/'''recruits reviewers''' for Profile sections |
** Ideally each section should be covered by more than one reviewer | ** Ideally each section should be covered by more than one reviewer | ||
** Reviewing assignments can be divided up any way that is convenient | ** Reviewing assignments can be divided up any way that is convenient | ||
** It is helpful to have some reviewers read through the profile in its entirety (finds inconsistencies/gaps) | ** It is helpful to have some reviewers read through the profile in its entirety (finds inconsistencies/gaps) | ||
| − | * Reviewers check the Profile meets the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]''' as well as '''[[How_to_Write_a_Profile#Follow_Profile_Writing_Guidelines|guidelines for clarity/quality]]''' | + | * ''Reviewers'' check the Profile meets the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]''' as well as '''[[How_to_Write_a_Profile#Follow_Profile_Writing_Guidelines|guidelines for clarity/quality]]''' |
** A two week window for the reviewers to do their work is suggested | ** A two week window for the reviewers to do their work is suggested | ||
| − | * Reviewers '''report back''' to the Biomarker Committee | + | * ''Reviewers'' '''report back''' to the Biomarker Committee |
| − | * | + | * ''Authors and Biomarker Committee'' resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers |
| + | * ''Co-chair'' accepts a motion to send the document to ballot | ||
| + | ==Approve (Biomarker Committee)== | ||
| + | The main purpose of '''Biomarker Committee''' approval is to '''confirm that all the detailed contents are correct and the profile meets the criteria''' for the stage. | ||
| − | + | * ''RSNA Staff'' circulates a '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|Ballot]]''' asking Biomarker Committee members to approve that the content of the '''Profile meets the [[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]''' | |
| − | + | ** The ballot period should be 2-5 weeks (typically 30 days) to allow time to review the full Profile text | |
| − | * | ||
| − | ** | ||
** In the case of approving to publish for Public Comment, it is acceptable to instead hold a vote during a committee meeting. | ** In the case of approving to publish for Public Comment, it is acceptable to instead hold a vote during a committee meeting. | ||
| + | * ''Biomarker Committee'' reviews and ratifies the '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|Ballot]]''' results | ||
| + | * ''RSNA Staff'' forwards the minutes (which contains ballot details and highlights any contentious ballot comment resolutions) to the relevant Coordinating Committee Leadership with a request for approval to publish | ||
| + | ==Approve (Coordinating Committee)== | ||
| + | The main purpose of '''Coordinating Committee''' approval is oversight to '''confirm that the profile is hitting the intended mark''' (e.g. the claim is on target) and to bring fresh eyes to the overall document (it is understandable, unburdensome and likely to be effective). | ||
| − | + | * ''Coordinating Committee Leadership'' asks members to approve the Profile for publication. | |
| − | + | ** ''Leadership'' typically puts the topic on an upcoming meeting agenda for an in-committee '''[[Committee_Procedures#Voting|Vote]]''' | |
| − | * | + | *** Since there is a lengthy document involved, the agenda notification should be circulated at least 2 weeks before the meeting. |
| − | * | + | ** ''Leadership'' may choose to do a '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|ballot]]''' instead if that would be faster than waiting for the next meeting |
| − | |||
| − | ** Since there is a lengthy document involved, the agenda notification should be circulated at least 2 weeks before the meeting. | ||
| − | ** | ||
Revision as of 16:52, 9 July 2019
Profiles are reviewed/approved at each stage:
- The review/approval steps are the same, but the criteria differ
Remember, this is the QA point for your work. It doesn't have to be perfect. It does have to be good.
Review (Biomarker Committee)
The following review process is strongly recommended, but Biomarker Committees are not required to follow this specific process.
- Editor of the Profile requests content review once they feel work on the current stage has been completed
- Biomarker Committee assigns/recruits reviewers for Profile sections
- Ideally each section should be covered by more than one reviewer
- Reviewing assignments can be divided up any way that is convenient
- It is helpful to have some reviewers read through the profile in its entirety (finds inconsistencies/gaps)
- Reviewers check the Profile meets the criteria for the stage as well as guidelines for clarity/quality
- A two week window for the reviewers to do their work is suggested
- Reviewers report back to the Biomarker Committee
- Authors and Biomarker Committee resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers
- Co-chair accepts a motion to send the document to ballot
Approve (Biomarker Committee)
The main purpose of Biomarker Committee approval is to confirm that all the detailed contents are correct and the profile meets the criteria for the stage.
- RSNA Staff circulates a Ballot asking Biomarker Committee members to approve that the content of the Profile meets the criteria for the stage
- The ballot period should be 2-5 weeks (typically 30 days) to allow time to review the full Profile text
- In the case of approving to publish for Public Comment, it is acceptable to instead hold a vote during a committee meeting.
- Biomarker Committee reviews and ratifies the Ballot results
- RSNA Staff forwards the minutes (which contains ballot details and highlights any contentious ballot comment resolutions) to the relevant Coordinating Committee Leadership with a request for approval to publish
Approve (Coordinating Committee)
The main purpose of Coordinating Committee approval is oversight to confirm that the profile is hitting the intended mark (e.g. the claim is on target) and to bring fresh eyes to the overall document (it is understandable, unburdensome and likely to be effective).
- Coordinating Committee Leadership asks members to approve the Profile for publication.
- Leadership typically puts the topic on an upcoming meeting agenda for an in-committee Vote
- Since there is a lengthy document involved, the agenda notification should be circulated at least 2 weeks before the meeting.
- Leadership may choose to do a ballot instead if that would be faster than waiting for the next meeting
- Leadership typically puts the topic on an upcoming meeting agenda for an in-committee Vote