Difference between revisions of "Talk:Review Process"
|Line 2:||Line 2:|
to publishing a Public Comment Profile, a Consensus Profile, a Technically Confirmed Profile, Claim Confirmed Profile or a Clinically Confirmed Profile
'''criteria change '''
Revision as of 18:42, 2 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 change 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 pre-approval 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 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 stage as well as general clarity/quality
- A two week window for the reviewers to do their work is suggested
- 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 several 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.