Difference between revisions of "Review Process"

From QIBA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
The same review and approval process occurs prior to releasing a Public Comment Draft, a Reviewed Draft, or a Tested Draft.  Just the criteria change.  
+
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 and Approval==
+
==Review==
* Judge the document to be fit for the next phase (Technical Committee''')
+
* Authors/Editor of the Profile request review for approval once they feel work on the current stage has been completed
** Schedule review meeting(s) as needed with open committee
+
* Biomarker Committee assigns/recruits reviewers for Profile sections
** Submit document 1 week before review meeting
+
** Ideally each section should be covered by more than one reviewer
** Line-by-line review/walkthrough led by editor
+
** Reviewing assignments can be divided up any way that is convenient
** Resolve questions/comments/clarifications
+
** It doesn't hurt to have some reviewers read through the profile in its entirety (finds inconsistencies/gaps)
** Vote (for Public Comment) or [[Balloting Process|Ballot]] (for Reviewed or Tested) to approve the document as fit for the next phase.
+
* 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
===Criteria for publishing Public Comment draft===
+
* All open issues have been clearly listed
+
* Some groundwork projects may be underway
+
* Candidate resolutions have been selected for most/all issues and drafted into the Profile
+
* All major mechanisms and profile details are mostly clear/complete enough to implement
+
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
+
* Compliance requirements are sufficient to accomplish the goal of the profile
+
 
+
===Criteria for publishing Reviewed draft===
+
* All open issues have been resolved
+
* Few, if any, groundwork projects remain active
+
* All major mechanisms and profile details are clear/complete enough to implement
+
* All major mechanisms have been tested in one or more groundwork or referenced studies (although reasonable deviations from Profile details may exist)
+
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
+
* Compliance requirements are sufficient to accomplish the goal of the profile
+
 
+
===Criteria for publishing Technically Confirmed Profile===
+
* All major mechanisms and profile details have been tested as written
+
* Groundwork projects are complete
+
* All major mechanisms and profile details have been implemented by at least one system/site.
+
* The claim of the profile has been accomplished in "controlled" conditions
+
 
+
===Criteria for publishing Clinically Confirmed Profile===
+
* All major mechanisms and profile details have been tested in the field as written
+
* All major mechanisms and profile details have been "widely" implemented by multiple systems/sites
+
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
+
* The claim of the profile has been accomplished in clinical conditions
+
  
==Publication==
+
==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.
  
<describe process for sending the document to QIBA Staff, the checks they will conduct, and where/how it will be posted>
+
==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.