Difference between revisions of "Review Process"

From QIBA Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(23 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
−
Prior to publishing a Public Comment Profile, a Consensus Profile, a Technically Confirmed Profile, Claim Confirmed Profile or a Clinically Confirmed Profile:
+
Profiles are reviewed/approved by their parent Biomarker Committee and Coordinating Committee at [[QIBA Profile Stages|each Stage]]:
−
* The review and approval process is the same
+
* The review/approval steps are the same for each stage, but the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria differ]]'''  
−
* '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|The criteria differ depending on the stage]]'''
+
* The '''[[Public Comment Process|Public Comment Review]]''' is another process that specifically covers soliciting and resolving comments that can come from beyond the Committee.
  
  
−
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.
−
* Authors/Editor of the Profile request content review once they feel work on the current stage has been completed
+
* ''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 general 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
−
* The Authors and Biomarker Committee resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers
+
* ''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)==
 
==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]]'''
+
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.
−
** Generally the ballot period should be 2-4 weeks to allow time to review the full Profile text
+
 
 +
* ''Biomarker Committee'' submits to RSNA Staff the '''profile document''' and, if approving for a stage after Public Comment, the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|supporting document for that 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 profile document and supporting document are attached to or linked from the ballot
 +
** 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 members'' review the profile and supporting document and confirm '''Profile meets the [[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]'''
 +
* ''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).
  
−
==Approve (Modality Coordinating Committee)==
+
* ''Coordinating Committee Leadership'' asks members to approve the Profile for publication.
−
* The Biomarker Committee provides the details of the ballot (highlighting any unresolved ballot comments) and requests approval to publish from the Coordinating Committee
+
** ''Leadership'' typically puts the topic on an upcoming meeting agenda for an in-committee '''[[Committee_Procedures#Voting|Vote]]'''
−
** Note that some Coordinating Committees only meet once every several months so the Biomarker Committee is advised to check on that to avoid missing a window
+
*** Since there is a lengthy document involved, the agenda notification should be circulated at least 2 weeks before the meeting.
−
* The Coordinating Committee puts the approval question on the agenda for a [[Voting Process|Vote]] in committee at an upcoming 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.
 
−
** The Coordinating Committee may choose to do a [[Balloting Process|ballot]] if that would be faster than waiting for the next meeting
 

Revision as of 23:49, 10 August 2020

Profiles are reviewed/approved by their parent Biomarker Committee and Coordinating Committee at each Stage:

  • The review/approval steps are the same for each stage, but the criteria differ
  • The Public Comment Review is another process that specifically covers soliciting and resolving comments that can come from beyond the Committee.


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.

  • Biomarker Committee submits to RSNA Staff the profile document and, if approving for a stage after Public Comment, the supporting document for that 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 profile document and supporting document are attached to or linked from the ballot
    • 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 members review the profile and supporting document and confirm Profile meets the criteria for the stage
  • 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=15841"