Difference between revisions of "Review Process"

From QIBA Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(45 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
It's basically the same review process prior to releasing for Trial Implementation or Publication (and if we want to be good, before Public Comment).  
+
__NOTOC__
 +
Profiles are reviewed/approved by their parent Biomarker Committee and Coordinating Committee at [[QIBA Profile Stages|each Stage]]:
 +
* The review/approval steps are the same for each stage, but the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria differ]]'''
 +
* 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.
 
  
−
==Review and Approval==
+
Remember, this is the QA point for your work.  It doesn't have to be perfect.  '''It does have to be good'''.
−
* Judge the document to be fit for the next phase ('''Authoring Committee''')
 
−
* Schedule review meeting with Modality Committee
 
−
* Submit document 1 week before review meeting ('''Authoring Committee''')
 
−
* Line-by-line review ('''Modality Committee''')
 
−
** Walkthrough led by lead author
 
−
** Resolve questions/comments/clarifications from Modality Committee
 
−
* Record vote to approve the document as fit for the next phase ('''Modality Committee''')
 
  
 +
==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 '''[[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 Public Comment===
+
==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.
  
−
===Criteria for Trial Implementation===
+
* ''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.
 +
* ''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
  
−
===Criteria for Publication===
+
==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

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"