AIHA Publications New Content Proposals

Submission & Approval Process for New Educational Videos, Apps, eTools, and Publications

New content proposals are reviewed by the Content Portfolio Advisory Group (CPAG) and approved by the AIHA Board of Directors. Part of the review is determining how the proposal aligns with AIHA's CPAG Content Priorities. Before submitting, review the CPAG Content Priorities Summary Document (PDF) to see how your proposal can best align with one or more of the priorities.

Step 1: Concurrent Review and CPAG Scoring: CPAG members, AIHA staff, the volunteer group (VG) Chair, and the Board Liaison review the proposal concurrently. CPAG evaluates the proposal's alignment with AIHA's mission, content priorities, strategic plan priorities, feasibility, and measurable outcomes. AIHA staff assess resource allocation and current market demand.

Reviewer feedback is scored collectively:

• An overall average score of 3.5 or higher is a recommendation for the Board to approve the proposal.
• An overall average score below 3.5 means the proposal is not recommended for Board approval.

Step 2: Board Review and Final Decision (For Publications and Videos EXCEPT Position Statements): The proposal, its scores, and the group's recommendation are sent to the AIHA Board for review and final decision. The Board considers the collective evaluation and recommendation as advisory input. Depending on the complexity of the issue, the Board may decide by electronic ballot, generally within five business days and requiring unanimous agreement, or defer discussion until its next scheduled meeting. A recusal does not count against the unanimous agreement provision. If the remaining members all agree, the proposal is approved.

There are two possible outcomes.

A. The AIHA Board approves the project. Board approval confirms that AIHA will develop the content. It does not approve funding or staff resources. Those are determined separately:

• Projects that require no funding or outside services. The project leader and the originating volunteer group may begin work.
• Projects that require funding or outside services. Outside services include professional production, design, editing, translation, software development, or similar work. Design and editing are usually done in-house, but outside services may be rendered because of the complexity or timing of a project. The volunteer group officer or project leader, with support from the staff liaison, prepares a project funding request that identifies the scope of work, estimated cost, and proposed timeline.

Resourcing requests follow one of three paths:

1. Annual budget request. Requests submitted by July 1 are considered for the following calendar year's budget.
2. Departmental operational budget. Requests submitted after July 1 may be absorbed into the relevant department's operational budget.
3. Invested Reserves Above Target (IRAT) request. IRAT funding supports strategic, investment-oriented initiatives rather than ongoing operations, such as a new product, service, or capability with the potential to become self-sustaining. Projects that maintain an existing program or represent a recurring annual expense follow path 1 or 2. The staff liaison, with support from the volunteer group officer or project leader, prepares and submits the IRAT request using AIHA’s IRAT guidance and template.

Before a resourcing request is submitted, AIHA staff may propose a lower-cost alternative that achieves the project's objectives with available resources. The project leader and originating volunteer group decide whether to pursue the alternative or proceed with the resourcing request. The project timeline starts once resourcing is confirmed.

B. The AIHA Board disapproves the project. The project leader may submit a new proposal that addresses, eliminates, or mitigates the Board's concerns.

Step 3: Communication of Final Decision: Staff communicate the Board's final decision to all stakeholders who provided input during the review process.

Process for New Position Statements:

Step 1: White paper first. Every proposal for a new position statement must be preceded by the development and approval of a corresponding white paper. The white paper goes through the standard CPAG and Board approval process for new publications.

Step 2: CPAG initial review. Once the white paper is approved, CPAG conducts a high-level review of the position statement proposal. CPAG assesses whether the approved white paper or other necessary background content adequately supports the proposal and provides advisory feedback.

Step 3: Board approval to proceed. The proposal is sent to the AIHA Board for review and approval to proceed with development.

Step 4: Development. After Board approval, the project team develops the position statement document.

Step 5: CPAG draft review. CPAG reviews the draft to confirm it aligns with the approved proposal and supporting materials, provides feedback, and recommends the final draft to the Board for approval.

Step 6: Board approval to publish. The AIHA Board must review and approve the final position statement before publication.
 

Time-Sensitive Projects

In the event of a public health crisis or natural disaster, projects addressing the situation may be fast-tracked and exempt from the standard CPAG content proposal process, pending approval from AIHA staff and the Board.
 

 

Pathway for NEW Content:

 

 

NOTE: Updated content will be available via the AIHA webpage, while archived content will not be visible. 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.

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. 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:

• Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (Required for Peer Reviewers to Sign)
• Peer Review Checklist (Required for Peer Reviewers to Sign & Complete)

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 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 before submitting a proposal, as we understand our market and can help you focus your proposal.