External Review Policy
Introduction
No not-for-profit independent research organisation could exist without people committed to the wider public good. In our case, we are fortunate to have external reviewers committed to quality. For the purposes of transparency and accountability, an explanation of what we mean by 'external review' is outlined below. Needless to say, any errors or omissions in the final published reports remain the responsibility of the writers.
Selection of external reviewers
Our external reviewers are individuals who are chosen for their specialised knowledge of a topic (or an aspect of a topic) being addressed in the report. External reviewers are usually named on the inside cover of the report, but occasionally, if requested, the name is kept confidential.
Objectives of external review
Reviewers are asked, among other things, to evaluate whether the draft report:
-
Achieves its strategic purpose
-
Has a clear intention
-
Is methodologically sound
-
Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
-
Is appropriately structured and easy to follow
-
Has any inaccuracies or omissions in the content
-
Has conclusions and/or recommendations that follows logically from the main body of the report
-
Discusses and provides the necessary references to relevant work
Response to questions more specific to the report’s topic area may also be requested. For example, whether ethical or cultural dimensions, or current scientific knowledge are appropriately and accurately incorporated.
The first review of the draft report is completed and internally reviewed by the Sustainable Future team. The second review is completed by external parties.
External review process
|
|
1. |
The topic is assessed to determine the type of expertise needed to review the report. |
|
|
2. |
A list of external reviewers is considered and agreed. The scope and timeframes of the review are discussed. |
|
|
3. |
All external reviewers’ will receive the one-page summary outlining the general tone and content of everyone's feedback. |
|
|
4. |
The reviewers’ responses are then considered, further discussed with the reviewers if clarification is required, and incorporated by the authors as appropriate. If the reviewers’ strategic comments/feedback is not adopted, this is discussed with the reviewer in advance of publication. For this reason, the authors maintain complete responsibility for the report’s content. To ensure this is clarified in the report, the following statement is made in the preface - ‘All errors and emissions remain the responsibility of the authors’. |
|
|
5. |
A final draft is prepared. At this point, if a reviewer requests, we will email the revised draft through to him/her so they may undertake a final revision of the draft (or part of it) before it goes to the editor and is published. |
|
|
6. |
The final draft goes to the editor and is published. |
Last Updated 16 December 2007
| 
