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

New content proposals must be reviewed and approved by the Content Portfolio Advisory Group (CPAG) and the AIHA Board of Directors.

The approval process includes determining how the proposal aligns with AIHA's CPAG Content Priorities. Please 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: The proposal is reviewed concurrently by CPAG members, AIHA staff, the VG Chair, and the Board Liaison. CPAG evaluates proposals based on their alignment with AIHA's mission, content priorities, feasibility, measurable outcomes, and strategic plan priorities. AIHA staff assess proposals by strategically considering resource allocation and current market demands.
The feedback is scored collectively. The scoring outcomes are as follows:
An overall average score of ≥3.5 is a recommendation for the Board to approve the proposal.
An overall average score of <3.5 indicates the proposal is not recommended for Board approval.

Step 2: Board Review and Final Decision (For Publications and Videos EXCEPT Position Statements): Proposals, along with their scores and recommendations, are sent to the AIHA Board for review and final decision-making. The Board considers the collective group's 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. If a Board member recuses themselves, this does not count against the unanimous agreement provision. That is, if the remaining members are all in agreement, the proposal is approved.
There are two possible outcomes during this review stage:
A.    The AIHA Board approves the project. If the proposal does not require funding, the project leader and the originating volunteer group may begin work. If the proposal is approved and requires funding, then the volunteer group officer will submit a funding request by July 1.
B.    The AIHA Board disapproves of the project. In this case, 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 final decision to all stakeholders who provided input on the Board's decision.

For Position Statements (NEW):

Step 1: All proposals for NEW position statements must first be preceded by the development and approval of a corresponding white paper (which goes through the standard CPAG/Board approval process for new publications).

Step 2: Once the white paper is approved, the position statement proposal undergoes an initial high-level review by CPAG. CPAG assesses whether the approved white paper or other necessary background content adequately supports the proposal. CPAG provides advisory feedback at this stage.

Step 3: Following CPAG's initial review, the position statement proposal is sent to the AIHA Board for review and approval to proceed with development.

Step 4: After the Board approves the proposal, the project team develops the position statement document.

Step 5: Once the position statement document has been drafted, CPAG reviews the draft to ensure it aligns with the approved proposal and supporting materials. CPAG provides feedback and recommends the final draft to the Board for approval.

Step 6: The final position statement document must be reviewed and approved by the AIHA Board prior to 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:

New Content Proposal Flowchart

 

 

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:

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.
 

Start Your Submission Today!