Difference between revisions of "Review Process"

From QIBA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
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 and Approval==
 
* Judge the document to be fit for the next phase ('''Authoring Committee''')
 
* Judge the document to be fit for the next phase ('''Authoring Committee''')
 
* Schedule review meeting with Modality Committee
 
* Schedule review meeting with Modality Committee
Line 11: Line 11:
 
** Resolve questions/comments/clarifications from Modality Committee
 
** Resolve questions/comments/clarifications from Modality Committee
 
* Record vote to approve the document as fit for the next phase ('''Modality Committee''')
 
* Record vote to approve the document as fit for the next phase ('''Modality Committee''')
 +
 +
 +
===Criteria for Public Comment===
 +
*
 +
 +
===Criteria for Trial Implementation===
 +
*
 +
 +
===Criteria for Publication===
 +
*
 +
*

Revision as of 02:55, 28 January 2011

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).

Remember, this is the QA point. It doesn't have to be perfect. It does have to be good.

Review and Approval

  • 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)


Criteria for Public Comment

Criteria for Trial Implementation

Criteria for Publication