Submission & Approval Process Guidelines for New 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.

For NEW Content Proposals:

STEP 1: The proposal is reviewed by AIHA staff, volunteer group leadership, and the volunteer group Board liaison(s) concurrently.

STEP 2: Comments are compiled, and an email is sent to members of CPAG to notify them that a proposal is ready for review.

STEP 3: CPAG members are given approximately five business days to review the initial proposal and provide preliminary feedback to the project leader. Once the project leader receives CPAG's feedback they have the opportunity to revise the current proposal to address, eliminate, or mitigate CPAG’s concerns. The project leader also has the option of modifying their proposal to incorporate CPAG's recommendations on how the proposed product can better incorporate the content priorities. Then, the modified proposal is resubmitted to CPAG for final review. CPAG has approximately five business days to score the final proposal. The possible scoring decisions are as follows:

  • An overall average score of ≥3.5 – the proposal has been approved without further discussion.
  • An overall average score of <3.5 means that the proposal is declined. However, the project leader can submit a new proposal that addresses, eliminates, or mitigates CPAG's concerns

STEP 4: For Publications EXCEPT for Position Statements that CPAG has approved are sent to the AIHA Board for review and final decision-making. Depending on the complexity of the issue, the Board may decide via a vote 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 accord, the proposal is approved.

There are two possible outcomes during this review stage:

  • The AIHA Board approves a project that CPAG has approved. If the proposal does not need funding, then the project leader and the originating volunteer group may start work. If the proposal is approved and requires funding, then the volunteer group officer will submit a funding request via the funding request form by July 1.
  • The AIHA Board disapproves a project that CPAG has approved. In this case, the project leader may submit a new proposal that addresses, eliminates, or mitigates the Board's concerns.

STEP 5: Staff communicates the final decision to the project leader, proposal sponsors such as the volunteer group chair and vice-chair, CPAG members, and any staff who provided input on the Board's decision.

STEP 6: Once the manuscript has been drafted and peer-reviewed, the AIHA Board liaison(s) must review and approve the final document prior to being published.

For NEW Position Statements:

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

STEP 2: After the white paper has been developed, the position statement proposal is sent to the Board for final review and approval.

STEP 3: Once the position statement has been developed, CPAG reviews the document and recommends the final draft to the Board.

STEP 4: The final document must be reviewed and approved by the Board prior to publication.

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.

Peer Review Process

Peer reviewer plays a critical role in the development of AIHA publications. Peer reviewers are subject matter experts on the topic covered by the document, but they do not contribute to the document's development except by providing feedback to authors for improving the quality and validity of the research presented in the manuscript.

Peer reviewers are determined by the volunteers that develop the content. The proposal submitter lists the names of the peer reviewers and selects the peer review level when completing the content proposal form. Once a publication has been approved for development, the manuscript must go through the formal peer-review process prior to publication. Depending on the nature of the content that the author submits, the level of necessary peer review will vary. 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 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.