This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Peer review
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
A peer review is a formal review process used by many HL7 committees to perform quality assurance on artifacts. It involves up to 7 steps:
- An artifact is produced to a level that is deemed to be "as complete as possible without review"
- Upon agreement from the respective committee the author of the artifact distributes the artifact, together with a peer review form and schedules a peer review meeting
- Optionally, an interim Q&A meeting may be scheduled to assist reviewers in their review
- Reviewers go through the artifact identifying issues and concerns, capturing each one as a distinct row in the peer review form
- Reviewers submit their peer review forms, generally to the committee list server or perhaps to the committee wiki. Forms must be submitted by the submission deadline.
- The author reviews the peer review forms, identifying proposed dispositions (accepted, rejected, question, partially accepted, etc.)
- At the peer review call, the author leads the committee (and other reviewers) in a walkthrough of the review comments, confirming resolutions, answering questions, identifying rationale for rejections, etc.
The purpose of the peer review is to help encourage a more complete review without necessarily going through the rigor of a complete ballot process. The review can also cover "partial" or incomplete artifacts.