Difference between revisions of "Review Process"

From QIBA Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(33 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/approval steps are the same, but the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria differ]]'''
  
−
The same review an approval process occurs prior to releasing a Public Comment Draft, a Reviewed, Draft, or a Tested Draft.  Just the criteria change.
 
  
−
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 and Approval==
+
==Review (Biomarker Committee)==
−
* Judge the document to be fit for the next phase (Technical Committee''')
+
The following review process is strongly recommended, but Biomarker Committees are not required to follow this specific process.
−
** Schedule review meeting(s) as needed with open committee
+
* ''Editor'' of the Profile requests content review once they feel work on the current stage has been completed
−
** Submit document 1 week before review meeting
+
* ''Biomarker Committee'' assigns/'''recruits reviewers''' for Profile sections
−
** Line-by-line review/walkthrough led by editor
+
** Ideally each section should be covered by more than one reviewer
−
** Resolve questions/comments/clarifications
+
** Reviewing assignments can be divided up any way that is convenient
−
** Record vote to approve the document as fit for the next phase (as quorum of regular attender list maintained by RSNA staff)
+
** 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]]'''
 +
** 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
  
−
===Criteria for publishing Public Comment draft===
+
==Approve (Biomarker Committee)==
−
* All open issues have been clearly listed
+
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.
−
* Some groundwork projects may be underway
 
−
* Candidate resolutions have been selected for most/all issues and drafted into the Profile
 
−
* All major mechanisms and profile details are mostly clear/complete enough to implement
 
−
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
 
−
* Compliance requirements are sufficient to accomplish the goal of the profile
 
  
−
===Criteria for publishing Reviewed draft===
+
* ''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]]'''
−
* Few, if any, groundwork projects remain active
+
** The ballot period should be 2-5 weeks (typically 30 days) to allow time to review the full Profile text
−
* All major mechanisms and profile details are clear/complete enough to implement
+
** In the case of approving to publish for Public Comment, it is acceptable to instead hold a vote during a committee meeting.
−
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
+
* ''Biomarker Committee'' reviews and ratifies the '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|Ballot]]''' results
−
* Compliance requirements are sufficient to accomplish the goal of the profile
+
* ''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
  
−
===Criteria for publishing Tested draft===
+
==Approve (Coordinating Committee)==
−
* All open issues have been resolved
+
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).
−
* All major mechanisms and profile details have been tested in the field
+
 
−
* Groundwork projects are complete
+
* ''Coordinating Committee Leadership'' asks members to approve the Profile for publication.
−
* All major mechanisms and profile details are clear/complete enough to implement
+
** ''Leadership'' typically puts the topic on an upcoming meeting agenda for an in-committee '''[[Committee_Procedures#Voting|Vote]]'''
−
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
+
*** Since there is a lengthy document involved, the agenda notification should be circulated at least 2 weeks before the meeting.
−
* Compliance requirements are sufficient to accomplish the goal of the profile
+
** ''Leadership'' may choose to do a '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|ballot]]''' instead if that would be faster than waiting for the next meeting

Revision as of 16:52, 9 July 2019

Profiles are reviewed/approved at each stage:


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
Retrieved from "https://qibawiki.rsna.org/index.php?title=Review_Process&oldid=14287"