American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Position Paper Development Process
Approved by the Technical Activities Committee
January 2011
Approved by the Public Policy Committee
January 2011
Forward
This document prescribes the procedures to be followed in developing an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Position Paper for external distribution. It is a governing document for the Public Policy Committee and Technical Activities Committee, which must jointly approve all such papers prior to their submission to the Board of Directors. Should conflicts be identified between this document and either the AIAA Constitution or By-Laws, the latter documents prevail.
Table of Contents
1 Purpose ... 4
2 Policy Paper Categories ... 4
3 Process ... 4
3.1 Propose AIAA Position ... 5
3.2 Assign Review Coordinator ... 6
3.3 Recruit Peer Review Committee ... 6
3.4 Check Completeness ... 6
3.5 Review COI Disclosures ... 7
3.6 Review Proposal Content ... 7
3.7 Assess Final Proposal ... 7
3.8 Brief TAC and PPC ... 7
3.9 TAC and PPC Approval ... 7
3.10 Recommend Approval to BoD ... 8
3.11 Schedule ... 8
4 Roles, Responsibilities, and Ethical Standards ... 8
4.1 VP Technical and VP Public Policy ... 9
4.2 TAC and PPC ... 9
4.3 Review Coordinator ... 9
4.4 Authoring Committee ... 9
4.5 Peer Review Committee ... 10
5 Conclusion ... 11
Attachment 1 Proposal Content Standard ... 12
Attachment 2 COI Disclosure ... 13
Attachment 3 Comment Review Matrix ... 18
1
Purpose
As “the forum for Aerospace leadership,” AIAA has an important role in the national and international public policy debate. Toward that end, AIAA members may develop policy papers on aerospace issues for distribution to external audiences, subject to approval by the Board of Directors (BoD) and prerequisite reviews and approvals by the Public Policy Committee (PPC) and the Technical Activities Committee (TAC). This document provides guidance for developing public policy papers and obtaining PPC/TAC approval. It includes a description of the process and expectations in terms of Acceptance Criteria, Content Standard, and Conflict of Interest Disclosure requirements.
2
Policy Paper Categories
The PPC has defined three categories of AIAA policy papers1:
“1. AIAA Information Paper: A paper that provides information only – with no formal recommendation for a course of action. This paper is the least formal of the Public Policy papers.
“2. AIAA Member/Group Position Paper: A statement which provides an objective and balanced analysis of an issue and which states the position of the sponsoring AIAA individual, committee or group, on that issue. Unlike the Information Paper, the Position Paper may include formal recommendations of Government action on the issue. It is important to note that this paper represents the views of the authoring group / committee, but not necessarily the views of AIAA as a whole.
“3. AIAA Position Paper: A paper which provides an objective and balanced study with a clear AIAA position on the best course of action by government to address issues of interest or concern to AIAA members. This is the most stringent of the Public Policy papers, and therefore has the strictest guidelines for approval.”
The procedures and guidance provided herein pertain to the third category, AIAA Position Paper. Guidance for the other two categories will be promulgated at a later date.
3
Process
The overall process for development and approval of AIAA Position Papers is depicted in Figure 1. The process traces the procedures and decision gates for the progression of a position paper proposal, defined to be a complete position paper with background material documented in accordance with the Content Standard in Attachment 1, to PPC and TAC approval. It allows for proactive generation of papers from the membership, defines clear decision gates, and
incorporates three revision cycles. Each step is described below.
Figure 1, Process Overview 3.1 Propose AIAA Position
The first step in the process is to generate an AIAA position paper proposal, hereafter referred to as a proposal. The Authoring Committee is the team that advocates a proposal
throughout the process. Often, this team originates as a core group of AIAA members who share a common view about a government policy change that should be made. It is important for the
ultimate success of the position paper that the core group obtains wide and diverse membership on the Authoring Committee. At a minimum they should involve Technical Groups, Technical Committees (TCs), and Program Committees (PCs) within TAC that have interests intersecting the scope of the paper, and representation from the appropriate PPC subcommittee. Appropriate representatives can be easily identified with assistance from within the TAC and PPC
organizations. Failure to obtain wide participation in the Authoring Committee will likely result in an unsatisfactory outcome.
Once established, the Authoring Committee must become familiar with the process and guidance promulgated in this document. All guidance documents are provided as attachments.
The principal work and responsibility of the Authoring Committee is to identify and resolve any issues the proposal may engender. The review process described herein will quickly discover issues but is not designed to provide the extensive and potentially open-ended
discussion and negotiation necessary to resolve them. Again, wide breadth of membership in the Authoring Committee is a key factor.
When all issues have been resolved, the proposal has been prepared in accordance with the Content Standard (Attachment 1), and authors have completed Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosures (Attachment 2), the Authoring Committee will submit the proposal to the Executive Steering Group. The Executive Steering Group is comprised of the Vice Presidents for Public Policy and for Technical Activities, or their designated representatives. The Authoring
Committee should use the established AIAA chain of command, going through an appropriate Technical Director, Program Committee Coordinator, or PPC subcommittee chair. Those
individuals are encouraged to conduct an initial screening for immature proposals and inadequate breadth in the Authoring Committee membership before forwarding a proposal to the Executive Steering Group. A review that duplicates the depth of the AIAA review is discouraged.
3.2 Assign Review Coordinator
When the Executive Steering Group receives a proposal they will confer and recruit a Review Coordinator. The Review Coordinator is responsible for establishing the Peer Review Committee and ensuring the review is timely, complete, and in compliance with this guidance.
3.3 Recruit Peer Review Committee
The Review Coordinator will assemble the Peer Review Committee. Peer reviewers will be recruited from the AIAA membership at large. TAC and PPC members will nominate peer reviewers and volunteer themselves, when appropriate. A peer reviewer must have technical expertise pertaining to the topic, not be a current or prior member of the Authoring Committee, and be willing to submit a COI Disclosure.
The Review Coordinator will review all peer reviewer COI Disclosures with respect to the position proposal to identify potential COI issues. Peer reviewer nominees with real or perceived COI issues will be consulted to determine whether the issues can be mitigated. In the event of irresolvable COI issues, the nominee will be recused.
3.4 Check Completeness
The Review Coordinator will check the Authoring Committee membership for sufficient breadth across TAC and PPC. Insufficient breadth may be grounds for returning the proposal to the Authoring Committee for additional work.
The Review Coordinator will also examine the position proposal with respect to the Content Standard in Attachment 1 to identify any missing elements. If incomplete, the proposal will be sent back to the Authoring Committee for revision. All elements of the Content Standard
are essential to the review. The Review Coordinator will proceed to the next step only when a complete proposal is provided. The completeness check is the only step in the process where the Review Coordinator has authority to hold a proposal. It is also the only review step that is allowed to iterate indefinitely.
3.5 Review COI Disclosures
The Peer Review Committee will examine the proposal recommendations and author COI Disclosures to identify potential conflicts. No author can be redacted from the proposal after submission. In the event a conflict of interest is deemed to exist, the Peer Review Committee will develop recommendations to modify the paper that will mitigate the conflict, up to and including deletion of problematic recommendations. All peer reviewer recommendations will be captured in the Comment Review Matrix (CRM) (Attachment 3).
The Authoring Committee will revise the proposal to mitigate the identified COI
concerns or provide a detailed, objective rebuttal. Peer Review Committee recommendations are not binding, but the Authoring Committee is obligated to provide a response for subsequent consideration by TAC and PPC. Therefore all actions and decisions will be recorded in the CRM, which will provide a historical record of the review.
3.6 Review Proposal Content
The second round of review will focus on the proposal content. The peer reviewers will follow the Acceptance Criteria (Attachment 4) to guide their review. They will consider each criterion and judge whether it is or is not satisfied. Unsatisfied criteria will be documented in the CRM with comments and, preferably, specific recommendations for language changes or courses of action that will ameliorate the deficiencies.
The Authoring Committee will revise the proposal to mitigate the identified deficiencies or provide a detailed, objective rebuttal. All actions will be recorded in the CRM, which will provide a historical record of the review.
3.7 Assess Final Proposal
The last activity of the Peer Review Committee is to assess the final proposal from the Authoring Committee. The Peer Review Committee will comment on the degree to which identified issues and concerns have been corrected. They will generate a recommendation to TAC and PPC to approve or reject the proposal based on compliance or noncompliance with the Acceptance Criteria.
3.8 Brief TAC and PPC
The Review Coordinator will prepare an information briefing for TAC and PPC to be presented at their next regularly scheduled meetings. That briefing will follow the outline of the Acceptance Criteria, highlighting where the proposal is in compliance and where residual issues remain. An information package will be provided at the earliest practical date prior to the meeting that includes the final proposal, CRM, and briefing.
3.9 TAC and PPC Approval
TAC and PPC will make individual committee approval decisions based on proposal compliance with the Acceptance Criteria, COI issues, Peer Review Committee recommendation, and reputations of authors and peer reviewers. In addition, they will consider alignment of the proposal with AIAA Strategic Priorities.
In order to maintain peer reviewer confidentiality, no member of the Authoring Committee will be permitted to participate in the final TAC or PPC deliberations.
If approved by both TAC and PPC, the executive summary of the proposal will be packaged and forwarded to the BoD along with a recommendation for BoD approval. TAC or PPC, at their discretion, may require specific changes as a condition for approval. In such a case the Review Coordinator will facilitate discussions among TAC, PPC, and the Authoring
Committee. Rejected proposals will be retained in TAC and PPC files but not released. The Review Coordinator will inform the Authoring Committee of the outcome of the votes and, if rejected, the reasons for rejection.
In the event of rejection, the Authoring Committee will be at liberty to begin a new proposal on the same topic.
3.10 Recommend Approval to BoD
Executive Steering Group will forward the executive summary of the proposal to the BoD along with a recommendation for BoD approval, and prepare to brief the BoD at their next regularly scheduled meeting.
3.11 Schedule
A fixed schedule cannot be assigned to the process – it will depend on the complexity and urgency of each proposal, the availability of reviewers, and the responsiveness of the Authoring Committee to reviewer comments. A nominal goal is about eight months, ending on a regularly scheduled meeting in the PPC and TAC cycle.
4
Roles, Responsibilities, and Ethical Standards
2Ethical standards and expectations for the publication of public policy documents relate to the following topics:
1. Accuracy: The obligation to assure that information presented is factual, accurate and complete.
2. Objectivity: The requirement to present unbiased, objective information in support of the papers thesis.
3. Conflict of Interest: The requirement to avoid any perception (real or perceived) of underlying financial or comprising interests affecting information or recommendations contained in public policy documents. The term "conflict of interest" means any financial or other interest that could significantly impair an individual's objectivity or could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization.
In order to be effective, AIAA Position Papers must be, and must be perceived to be, accurate, objective, and free of any significant conflict of interest. Recommendations can be undermined by allegations or perceptions of conflict of interest or lack of accuracy and objectivity.
The PPC and TAC, authors (both groups and individuals), and peer reviewers share in their obligations to uphold AIAA ethical standards during the generation and review of position paper proposals. The specific obligations of each group are described below.
2 Adapted from the AIAA Publications Committee ethical standards adopted in January 2006 that were in turn
4.1 VP Technical and VP Public Policy
The VPs will:
1. Maintain AIAA technical and ethical standards for proposals submitted for approval as AIAA Position Papers. Standards for these reviews derive from the community perception of standards of quality for scientific and engineering work and its presentation.
2. Ensure that TC and PC Chairs, Technical Directors and the Program Committee Coordinator, Deputy Directors, and PPC Sub-Committee Chairs are educated in this process and accompanying standards.
3. Promptly forward for BoD consideration all proposals approved by TAC and PPC as AIAA Position Papers.
4.2 TAC and PPC
TAC and PPC members will:
1. Give unbiased and impartial consideration to all proposals offered for approval, judging each on its scientific and engineering merits without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
2. Expeditiously review each proposal and accept or reject it as an AIAA Position Paper.
3. If rejected, provide rationale for rejection referenced to the published Acceptance Criteria or AIAA Strategic Priorities.
4.3 Review Coordinator
The Review Coordinator will:
1. Ensure that position paper proposals are processed promptly.
2. Review the COI Disclosure from each peer reviewer and ensure that no real or perceived COI exists.
3. Maintain confidentiality regarding a proposal under consideration and its disposition, with the exception of TAC and PPC and those from whom professional advice is sought.
4. Maintain confidentiality of peer reviewer identities relative to the Authoring Committee or others outside of TAC, unless given express permission from the reviewer.
4.4 Authoring Committee
The Authoring Committee will:
1. Familiarize themselves with all AIAA requirements for position paper proposals as specified herein – process, Approval Criteria, COI Disclosure, and Content Standard.
2. Submit proposals only when they are satisfied that all requirements have been fulfilled.
3. Present concise, accurate information and recommendations with objective supporting information in accordance with the Content Standard.
4. Provide sufficient detail and references to public sources of information such that the Peer Review Committee can verify the information.
5. Cite all publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the espoused position and that will guide the reader quickly to information that is essential for understanding the recommendations.
6. Ensure that the paper is free of plagiarism, i.e., that it does not appropriate the composition or ideas of another and claim them as original work of the present author(s). Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable and is considered a serious breach of professional conduct.
7. Avoid reporting information obtained privately, as in conversation,
correspondence, or discussion with third parties, unless given explicit permission. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, should be treated similarly.
8. List as authors only persons who have significantly contributed to the research and proposal. Deceased persons who meet the criterion for co-authorship should be included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as an author or co-author. The author who submits a proposal accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate, and attests to the fact that any others named as authors have seen the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission as a position paper proposal.
9. Provide a CRM to document adjudication of all comments of the authors during final review within the Authoring Committee.
10.Complete the COI Disclosure for each author.
11.Provide clear and concise author biographical information to demonstrate subject matter expertise, knowledge, and organizational affiliations (both employment and within AIAA).
It is inappropriate to submit position papers with an obvious marketing orientation.
4.5 Peer Review Committee
The role of the peer reviewer is primarily to ascertain the accuracy, objectivity, and overall quality of the position paper with respect to the Approval Criteria. AIAA position papers that represent the Institute as a whole must be evaluated based upon the expectation that the information and recommendations are supported by a documented and broadly established consensus of opinion.
The peer reviewers will:
1. Promptly recuse themselves if inadequately qualified or lacking the time to judge the paper.
2. Complete the COI Disclosure. Reviewers must be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the proposal promptly without review, advising the Review Coordinator of the conflict of interest or bias.
3. Promptly recuse themselves if a proposal is authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the
relationship would bias judgment of the proposal.
4. Judge the quality of a proposal objectively and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate.
5. Treat a proposal as a confidential document. Its contents, as well as the reviewers’ recommendations, should neither be shown to nor discussed with others outside of the Peer Review Committee, TAC, and PPC except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the Review Coordinator.
6. Explain and support judgments adequately so that the Review Coordinator and Authoring Committee may understand the basis of the comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument is factually incorrect should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
7. Be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by others that may contradict their conclusions.
8. Not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations except with the consent of the author.
5
Conclusion
The process and guidelines promulgated herein are intended to accelerate the review timeline for proposals and improve author and reviewer satisfaction with comment adjudication. Those goals are accomplished through the dissemination of specific expectations for acceptable proposals and a finite number of revision cycles. The process and guidelines will be reviewed in the future for efficacy and potential improvements at the discretion of VP Technical and VP Public Policy.
Attachment 1 Proposal Content Standard
The following is a template for the position paper proposal with brief descriptions of each section in italics. All sections are required for TAC and PPC to make informed decisions
regarding the quality of a proposal. The proposal is to be submitted as a line-numbered, read-only document, with the exception of Appendix B, CRM. Adobe “pdf” is the preferred format for the read-only portion. Microsoft Word is acceptable.
Executive Summary
The Executive Summary is the actual paper to be distributed external to AIAA. It is comprised of a concise, cogent summary of Sections 1-5 and Appendix A as described below.
1 Purpose
Describe the intended purpose of the position paper and target audience. Specify observables for a successful outcome.
2 Background
Relate the facts covering the following:
Description of the program, system, entity, or topic at issue;
Identities of principal people, organizations, and relationships; and Accomplishments to date by the principals on the issue.
This section should not include opinion, judgments, or commentary. 3 Shortfalls
Describe the nature of the issues to be rectified. Define the baseline plan, milestones, or threat timeline against which shortfalls are measured. Identify the shortfalls and provide a one-paragraph description of each. Shortfall descriptions must be defensible, objective, and relative to the baseline.
4 Options
Discuss alternatives considered for addressing each shortfall. Justify the selection of options that are recommended. Include appendices as needed detailing any analyses. 5 Conclusion
Summarize the recommendations and demonstrate that they will mitigate the shortfalls. This section should be reproduced completely in the executive summary.
Appendix A: References
Appendix B: Comment review matrix
Appendix C: Author biographies and COI statements Appendix D-Z (as needed): Supporting analyses and data
Prospective authors should review prior successful position papers at www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=139.
Attachment 2 COI Disclosure
Background Information
and
Confidential Conflict Of Interest Disclosure
3PUBLIC POLICY PAPER TITLE: ______________________________________
NAME: _____________________________
ROLE: Author Reviewer
TELEPHONE (Day): ____________ TELEPHONE (Cell): ____________
ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
EMAIL ADDRESS: ____________________________________________
CURRENT EMPLOYER: ________________________________________
AIAA MEMBER No. : ______________________________
AIAA COMMITTEE AFFILIATION: ______________________________ (N/A if none)
There are two parts to this form, Part I Background Information, and Part II Confidential Conflict of Interest Disclosure. Complete both parts, sign and date this form on the last page, and return the form to the Review Coordinator. Retain a copy for your records.
3 Adapted from “Background Information and Confidential Conflict of Interest Disclosure for Studies Related to
PART I BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INSTRUCTIONS
Please provide the information requested below regarding relevant organizational affiliations, public statements and positions, and additional information (if any). Information is "relevant" if it is related to -- and might reasonably be of interest to others concerning -- your knowledge, experience, and personal perspectives regarding the subject matter and issues addressed by AIAA Public Policy Paper.
I. ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATIONS. Report your relevant business relationships (as an employee, owner, officer, director, consultant, etc.) and your relevant remunerated or volunteer non-business relationships (e.g., professional organizations, trade associations, public interest or civic groups, etc.).
II. OTHER SUPPORT. Report relevant information regarding both public and private sources of support (other than your present employer), including sources of funding, equipment, facilities, etc.
III. PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND POSITIONS. List your relevant articles, testimony,
speeches, etc., by date, title, and publication (if any) in which they appeared, or provide relevant representative examples if numerous. Provide a brief description of relevant positions of any organizations or groups with which you are closely identified or associated.
IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. If there are relevant aspects of your background or present circumstances not addressed above that might reasonably be construed by others as affecting your judgment in matters associated with the information or recommendations of the proposed AIAA Public Policy paper, please describe them briefly.
PART II CONFIDENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE
INSTRUCTIONS
It is important that the AIAA Position Papers be free from any conflict of interest. For this purpose, the term "conflict of interest" means any financial or other interest that could significantly impair an individual's objectivity or could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization.
Conflict of interest requirements are not an assessment of one's actual behavior or character, one's ability to act objectively despite the conflicting interest, or one's relative insensitivity to particular dollar amounts of specific assets because of one's personal wealth. Conflict of interest requirements are objective standards designed to eliminate certain specific, potentially compromising situations.
The term "conflict of interest" applies only to current interests. It does not apply to past interests that have expired, no longer exist, and cannot reasonably affect current behavior. Nor does it apply to possible interests that may arise in the future but do not currently exist, because such future interests are inherently speculative and uncertain.
The questions below are designed to elicit information from you concerning possible conflicts of interest that are relevant to position paper being considered.
1. RELATIONSHIPS TO THE INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PAPER. Taking into account your interests --
(a) Do receive current financial support from those that might benefit if the recommendations of the proposed paper are adopted?
(b) Do you receive substantial current non-financial support (e.g., equipment, facilities, industry partnerships, research assistants and other research personnel, etc.), from those that might benefit if the recommendations of the proposed paper are adopted?
(c) Do you have any other current financial interest (e.g., patent rights, interests in partnerships and commercial ventures, etc.) related to the proposed position paper recommendations or information?
If the answers to all of the above questions is either "no" or "not applicable," check here _____ (NO).
If the answer to any of the above questions is "yes," check here ____ (YES), and briefly describe the circumstances on the last page of this form.
2. OTHER INTERESTS. (a) If recommendations or information in the proposed public policy paper were accepted,
(i) could your current employment or self-employment (or your spouse's current employment or self-employment) be directly affected?
(ii) could any significant financial interests of your (or your spouse's) employer or, if self-employed, your (or your spouse's) significant clients and/or business partners be directly affected?
(ii) could there be a direct effect on any current consulting relationships?
(b) Do you have any existing professional obligations (e.g., as an officer of a scientific or engineering society) that effectively require you to publicly defend a previously established position on an issue that is relevant to the proposed position paper?
(c) If you are or have ever been a U.S. Government employee (either civilian or military), to the best of your knowledge are there any federal conflict of interest restrictions that may apply?
If the answers to all of the above questions under OTHER INTERESTS is either "no" or "not applicable," check here _____ (NO).
If the answer to any of the above questions under OTHER INTERESTS is "yes," check here ____ (YES), and briefly describe the circumstances below.
EXPLANATION OF "YES" RESPONSES: Affirmation: _______________________________________ ________________________ Signature Date Reviewed by: ___________________________ ________________________ Review Coordinator Date
Attachment 3 Comment Review Matrix
The table below is a template for the Comment Review Matrix (CRM). It provides a historical record of all comments and recommendations and Authoring Committee efforts toward adjudication. Peer reviewer names will be withheld from the Authoring Committee to preserve reviewer confidentiality. TAC and PPC will weigh reputations of authors and peer reviewers in assessing the significance of unresolved reviewer comments.
The CRM is most conveniently manipulated and submitted as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Review Coordinator should copy the table below into MS Excel.
Comment No. Reviewer Start Line End Line C/S/Aa Acceptance Criteriab
Recommendation Rationale Author Response
1 Dr. Doe 26 38 C 1.2 Revised language
or course of action Supporting argument and evidence Resulting change or rebuttal
a. C=critical (fatal flaw), S=substantial (significant issue), A=administrative (spelling, grammar)
Attachment 4 Acceptance Criteria
The following details the specific criteria for judging a proposal. It borrows heavily from the National Research Council guidelines for review of reports.4
1. Purpose and scope
1.1.Is the intended audience identified?
1.2.Are the purpose and scope clearly defined?
1.3.Are all aspects of the purpose and scope fully addressed? 1.4.Does the content exceed the stated purpose and scope?
1.5.Are purpose and scope consistent with the intended audience?
2. Strategic alignment
2.1.Do the recommendations advance AIAA strategic goals?
2.2.Are the recommendations not inconsistent with AIAA strategic goals?
3. Analytic rigor
3.1.Do the authors exceed their expertise?
3.2.Are the conclusions and recommendations adequately supported by evidence, analysis, and argument?
3.3.Are the advantages and disadvantages of alternative options, including the status quo, considered?
3.4.Are uncertainties or incompleteness in the evidence explicitly recognized? 3.5.Are the data and analyses handled competently?
3.6.Are statistical methods applied appropriately?
3.7.If any recommendations are based on value judgments or the collective opinions of the authors, is this acknowledged and are adequate reasons given for reaching those judgments?
3.8.If the position paper is based on a workshop, are findings and conclusions attributed to workshop participants?
4. Audience alignment
4.1.Is the executive summary accessible to the non-expert?
4.2.Are sensitive policy issues recognized and treated with proper care? For example, recommendations pertaining to government organization or funding?
4.3.Is the position paper unbiased and impartial?
5. Style and grammar
5.1.Are the position paper’s exposition and organization effective? 5.2.Is the title appropriate?
5.3.Does the executive summary concisely and accurately describe the key findings and recommendations?
5.4.Is the executive summary consistent with the full text of the paper?
6. What other significant improvements, if any, might be made?
7. Review resolution
7.1.Was a good-faith effort made to adjudicate reviewer comments?
7.2.Are unresolved dissenting opinions by reviewers captured in the comment review matrix?
7.3.Do any unresolved dissenting opinions require resolution before the position paper can be approved?
