Difference between revisions of "Review Process"

From QIBA Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
(49 intermediate revisions by 4 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).  
+
[[Image:QIBA_WIKI_BLURB.jpg|600px]]
  
−
Remember, this is the QA point.  It doesn't have to be perfect.  It does have to be good.
 
  
−
==Review and Approval==
+
__NOTOC__
−
* Judge the document to be fit for the next phase ('''Authoring Committee''')
+
Profiles are reviewed/approved by their parent Profile Authoring Group at [[QIBA Profile Stages|each Stage]]:
−
* Schedule review meeting with Modality Committee
+
* The review/approval steps are the same for each stage, but the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria differ]]'''  
−
* Submit document 1 week before review meeting ('''Authoring Committee''')
+
* The '''[[Public Comment Process|Public Comment Review]]''' is another process that specifically covers soliciting and resolving comments that can come from beyond the 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===
+
Remember, this is the QA point for your work.  It doesn't have to be perfect.  '''It does have to be good'''.
−
* All open issues have been clearly listed
 
−
* Candidate resolutions have been selected for most/all issues and drafted into the Profile
 
−
* All major mechanisms and profile details are clear/complete enough to implement
 
−
* Some groundwork projects may be underway
 
  
−
===Criteria for Trial Implementation===
+
==Review (Profile Authoring Group)==
−
* All major mechanisms and profile details are clear/complete enough to implement
+
The following review process is strongly recommended, but Profile Authoring Groups are not required to follow this specific process.
−
* Few, if any, groundwork projects remain active
+
* ''Editor'' of the Profile requests content review once they feel work on the current stage has been completed
 +
* ''Profile Authoring Group'' 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 Profile Authoring Group
 +
* ''Authors and Profile Authoring Group'' resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers
 +
* ''Co-chair'' accepts a motion to send the document to ballot
  
−
===Criteria for Publication===
+
==Approve (Profile Authoring Group)==
−
* All open issues have been resolved
+
The main purpose of '''Profile Authoring Group''' approval is to '''confirm that all the detailed contents are correct, and the Profile meets the criteria''' for the stage.
−
* All major mechanisms and profile details have been tested in the field
+
 
−
* Groundwork projects are complete
+
* ''Profile Authoring Group'' submits the '''Profile document''' and, if approving for a stage after Public Comment, the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|supporting document for that stage]]'''
 +
* ''Profile Authoring Group'' circulates a '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|Ballot]]''' asking Profile Authoring Group 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 meeting.
 +
* ''Profile Authoring Group members'' review the profile and supporting document and confirm '''Profile meets the [[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]'''
 +
* ''Profile Authoring Group'' reviews and ratifies the '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|Ballot]]''' results
 +
* ''Profile Authoring Group'' reviews any contentious ballot comment resolutions

Latest revision as of 17:37, 19 January 2024

QIBA WIKI BLURB.jpg


Profiles are reviewed/approved by their parent Profile Authoring Group 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 (Profile Authoring Group)

The following review process is strongly recommended, but Profile Authoring Groups 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
  • Profile Authoring Group 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 Profile Authoring Group
  • Authors and Profile Authoring Group resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers
  • Co-chair accepts a motion to send the document to ballot

Approve (Profile Authoring Group)

The main purpose of Profile Authoring Group approval is to confirm that all the detailed contents are correct, and the Profile meets the criteria for the stage.

  • Profile Authoring Group submits the Profile document and, if approving for a stage after Public Comment, the supporting document for that stage
  • Profile Authoring Group circulates a Ballot asking Profile Authoring Group 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 meeting.
  • Profile Authoring Group members review the profile and supporting document and confirm Profile meets the criteria for the stage
  • Profile Authoring Group reviews and ratifies the Ballot results
  • Profile Authoring Group reviews any contentious ballot comment resolutions
Retrieved from "https://qibawiki.rsna.org/index.php?title=Review_Process&oldid=19637"