Submission & Approval Process Guidelines for Existing Publications Content

CPAG's Advisory Role for Existing Content: For existing content undergoing scheduled five-year reviews or ad hoc updates, CPAG's role is advisory rather than decision-making. CPAG provides feedback on alignment with content priorities, but final decisions on whether to archive, update, or maintain content remain with the VG leadership and content authors.

Scheduled Five-Year Reviews: All publications are reviewed every five years by CPAG and the volunteer group responsible for ensuring content is relevant and up to date. CPAG provides advisory feedback on whether the content should be retained as is, amended, or archived, considering how well it aligns with current content priorities. The VG leadership and content authors make the final decision based on CPAG's input and their technical expertise. Staff communicate the final decision to the author and proposal sponsors, such as the volunteer group chair and board liaison. Updated content will be available via access to the AIHA webpage, while archived content will not be visible. Volunteer group leadership may send a request to staff for access to archived data.

Ad Hoc Updates to Existing Content: For publications that need to be updated prior to their next review cycle, proposals must be submitted to CPAG for review and approval via the Content Proposal Form. CPAG provides feedback through a "content priority lens" on how documents can better align with current priorities. This advisory feedback is shared with content authors and VG leadership, who make the final decision. AIHA staff may consult with the project leader regarding issues with content (i.e., vague statements, unclear references, potentially controversial material, and poor writing).

For Position Statements (Existing):

  Step 1: All proposals to update EXISTING position statements are sent to the Board for approval.

  Step 2: Once the position statement has been updated, CPAG reviews the document and recommends the final draft to the Board.

  Step 3: The final document must be reviewed and approved by the Board prior to publication.

 

 

Pathway for EXISTING Content:

Existing Content Proposal Process Flowchart

Click Image to View Full Size

NOTE: Updated content will be available via the AIHA webpage, while archived content will not be visible. To see a list of archived documents, click here. To request access to an archived document, click here. Volunteer group leadership may request staff for access to archived data. Archived content is not considered existing content, therefore, proposed projects to update archived content are regarded as new projects.
 

Peer Review Process
 

Peer reviewers play a critical role in the development of AIHA publications. Reviewers are selected as subject matter experts on the document's topic, but their role is strictly independent and focused on providing feedback to improve the quality and validity of the content.

If a book with multiple chapters is being reviewed, an author can be a peer reviewer of a chapter they did not write, but they shouldn't be the only reviewer of that chapter.

The Project Leader is responsible for nominating reviewers and proposing the appropriate peer review level during the content proposal phase. The final selection of reviewers and review level is determined by AIHA, based on the recommendations received. Once a content proposal is approved, the resulting publication must complete the established peer-review process prior to official publication. Upon completion of the peer review, the Project Leader or author must document how all reviewer comments were addressed or why they were not adopted.  There are three peer review levels:

Level 1: Content requires peer review by independent members (non-authors) of the originating volunteer group. This content may be described as:

  • Narrow in technical or scientific scope
  • Covered entirely under the expertise of the originating AIHA committee
  • Little or no controversy surrounding the subject matter

Level 2: Content requires peer review by independent reviewers (non-authors) from several technical volunteer groups. This content may be described as:

  • Moderately broad in technical or scientific scope
  • Relating to the expertise and interest of several AIHA committees
  • Encompassing science policy issues amenable to broadly different interpretations and thus subject to potential controversy within the scientific community and AIHA

Level 3: Content requires peer review by multiple technical volunteer groups and selected independent outside experts. Outside experts are people that are outside of the project team and have not contributed to the manuscript. They do not need to be an AIHA member or part of a volunteer group and may be reviewing the manuscript on behalf of another organization. This content may be described as:

  • Broad in technical or scientific scope and affecting many disciplines
  • Directly concerning important non-AIHA stakeholders
  • Having the potential to generate intense controversy within and outside of AIHA
  • Having the potential to engage media attention or impact public policy

For more information on the peer review process, please review the following documents:

We ensure that no authors will be discriminated against based on the content they provide to improve worker health. We also understand some topics may be more sensitive than others. The fact remains that, if a topic is relevant to worker health and safety, we should craft informational content relevant to it that focuses on science rather than any political, economic, or social goal.

Ready to submit your idea?
 

Please check out the AIHA University before submitting a proposal to avoid proposing a product that we already offer. You may want to contact us about product viability prior to submitting a proposal as we know our market and can help you focus your proposal.
 

Start Your Submission Today!