Difference between revisions of "Review Process"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
− | The same review and approval process occurs prior to | + | 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'''. | Remember, this is the QA point. It doesn't have to be perfect. '''It does have to be good'''. | ||
− | ==Review | + | ==Review== |
− | * | + | * Authors/Editor of the Profile request review for approval 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 current stage]]''' as well as general clarity/quality | |
− | + | * Resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers | |
− | |||
− | * | ||
− | * | ||
− | * | ||
− | |||
− | * It | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | * | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | * | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Approve (Biomarker Committee)== |
+ | * Vote (for Public Comment) or [[Balloting Process|Ballot]] (for Reviewed or Tested) to approve the document as fit for the next phase. | ||
− | + | ==Approve (Modality Coordinating Committee)== | |
+ | * Vote (for Public Comment) or [[Balloting Process|Ballot]] (for Reviewed or Tested) to approve the document as fit for the next phase. |
Revision as of 03:06, 21 May 2016
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
- Authors/Editor of the Profile request review for approval 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 criteria for the current stage as well as general clarity/quality
- Resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers
Approve (Biomarker Committee)
- Vote (for Public Comment) or Ballot (for Reviewed or Tested) to approve the document as fit for the next phase.
Approve (Modality Coordinating Committee)
- Vote (for Public Comment) or Ballot (for Reviewed or Tested) to approve the document as fit for the next phase.