Difference between revisions of "Review Process"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Update based on Process Cmte discussion) |
|||
| 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: | |
| + | * The review and approval process is the same | ||
| + | * '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|The criteria differ depending on the stage]]''' | ||
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== | + | ==Review (Biomarker Committee)== |
| − | * Authors/Editor of the Profile request review | + | The following review process is not required but is strongly recommended. |
| + | * Authors/Editor of the Profile request 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 | + | ** 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 | + | * Reviewers check the Profile meets the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]''' as well as general clarity/quality |
| − | * | + | ** A two week window for the reviewers to do their work is suggested |
| + | * Reviewers report back to the Biomarker Committee | ||
| + | * The Authors and Biomarker Committee resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers | ||
==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]]''' |
| + | ** Generally the ballot period should be 2-4 weeks 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. | ||
==Approve (Modality Coordinating Committee)== | ==Approve (Modality Coordinating Committee)== | ||
| − | * | + | * The Biomarker Committee provides the details of the ballot (highlighting any unresolved ballot comments) and requests approval to publish from the Coordinating Committee |
| + | ** 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 | ||
| + | * The Coordinating Committee puts the approval question on the agenda for a [[Voting Privileges|Vote]] in committee at an upcoming meeting. | ||
| + | ** Since there is a lengthy document involved, the agenda notification should be circulated at least 2 weeks before the meeting. | ||
| + | ** <Add note that the CC may choose to do a ballot if that would be faster than waiting for the next meeting> | ||
Revision as of 17:46, 9 November 2016
Prior to publishing a Public Comment Profile, a Consensus Profile, a Technically Confirmed Profile, Claim Confirmed Profile or a Clinically Confirmed Profile:
- The review and approval process is the same
- The criteria differ depending on the stage
Remember, this is the QA point. It doesn't have to be perfect. It does have to be good.
Review (Biomarker Committee)
The following review process is not required but is strongly recommended.
- Authors/Editor of the Profile request 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 general clarity/quality
- A two week window for the reviewers to do their work is suggested
- Reviewers report back to the Biomarker Committee
- The Authors and Biomarker Committee resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers
Approve (Biomarker Committee)
- The Secretariat circulates a Ballot asking Biomarker Committee members to approve that the content of 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
- In the case of approving to publish for Public Comment, it is acceptable to instead hold a vote during a committee meeting.
Approve (Modality Coordinating Committee)
- The Biomarker Committee provides the details of the ballot (highlighting any unresolved ballot comments) and requests approval to publish from the Coordinating Committee
- 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
- The Coordinating Committee puts the approval question on the agenda for a Vote in committee at an upcoming meeting.
- Since there is a lengthy document involved, the agenda notification should be circulated at least 2 weeks before the meeting.
- <Add note that the CC may choose to do a ballot if that would be faster than waiting for the next meeting>