Set out below is the definition of the review process to which future technique examples will be subjected.
This process was agreed at a management meeting of the SWP in October 2003 in an attempt to make the production of material more effective and efficient. This is a newly defined process and therefore may be refined in the future.
It should be noted that in cases where material is emailed to the group for review, or where an individual is seeking a collective decision, all members of the group are required to respond within a maximum of three weeks.
Under the new arrangements, the author will:
1) Initially volunteer to write an example of a given technique (in consultation with the Administrator, who will be responsible for the allocation of techniques). Techniques will be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis.
2) Undertake the appropriate research, soliciting input from the group via email as appropriate.
3) Produce a 1st draft of the example and email this material to the group for review. The target gestation period of a 1st draft will be six months.
4) Incorporate the comments provided into a 2nd draft and will then email the group for comments and permission to publish to the website for public review.
5) Collect the votes of the group. If a simple majority of the group approve the submission for publishing on the web site, then this 3rd draft can be uploaded to the website by the Administrator. Once uploaded, there will be a 3 month window of opportunity for visitors to the website to submit comments.
In the absence of a suitable majority, the author will resume the process at Step 4 (i.e. they will refine their 2nd draft and distribute that revised draft for approval). This refinement cycle will be repeated until the submission is deemed fit for publication on the website.
6) Produce a 4th draft, taking into account comments received via the website. This 4th draft will be distributed to the group for comments.
7) Incorporate the comments from the 4th draft into a 5th draft which will be the subject of a face-to-face review held as part of an SWP management meeting. This meeting should have between 3 and 5 attendees.
8) Incorporate the changes agreed at the final review meeting into a definitive version of the example, which will then be emailed to the Administrator so that it may be published on the website.
Under the new arrangements, the administrator will:
a) Maintain the matrix of authors and technique examples.
b) Generate target dates for authors to work to. The target gestation period of a first draft will be 6 months.
c) Maintain a record of the production status for each example. Status information will be published on the website. An example of a technique will progress through the following states:
- Awaiting 1st draft (start state)
- 1st draft review period
- Awaiting 2nd draft
- 2nd draft review period
- Awaiting 3rd draft
- 3rd draft published on the web for public comment
- Awaiting final draft
- Final draft review period
- Awaiting final changes
- Posted to web (final state)
For more information for Reviewers visit the Reviewers Guide page