|
|
| (15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| __NOTOC__
| |
| <Proposed Update>
| |
|
| |
|
| The same review and approval process occurs prior to publishing a Public Comment Profile, a Consensus Profile, a Technically Confirmed Profile, Claim Confirmed Profile or a Clinically Confirmed Profile. '''Just the criteria change.'''
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Remember, this is the QA point. It doesn't have to be perfect. '''It does have to be good'''.
| |
|
| |
| ==Review (Biomarker Committee)==
| |
| * Authors/Editor of the Profile request pre-approval 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 doesn't hurt 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 general clarity/quality
| |
| * Resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers
| |
|
| |
| ==Approve (Biomarker Committee)==
| |
| * The Secretariat circulates a [[Balloting Process|Ballot]] asking Biomarker Committee members to approve that the content of the Profile meets the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]'''
| |
| * Generally the ballot period should be several weeks 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.
| |
|
| |
| ==Approve (Modality Coordinating Committee)==
| |
| * A [[Voting Privileges|Vote]] in committee (for Public Comment) or [[Balloting Process|Ballot]] (for Consensus, Technically Confirmed, Claim Confirmed or Clinically Confirmed) to approve the document as fit for the next phase.
| |