Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-1 (of 1 Records) |
Query Trace: Peavy RD[original query] |
---|
Scientific document review at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: The CLEAR approach
Iskander JK , Calugar A , Peavy RD , Sowell A . Am J Public Health 2017 107 (6) 858-859 Scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publish an average of 50 peer-reviewed articles per week,1 in addition to numerous other widely disseminated materials. Review of scientific content at CDC is a key process by which the agency maintains high scientific standards. Formal CDC review processes, referred to as clearance, recently have come under scrutiny2 but have been upheld as crucial to maintaining the agency’s scientific reputation.3 | To help this process, particularly for short-term midcareer fellowships at CDC beginning in 2012, a review framework was developed empirically following the review of hundreds of scientific articles and incorporated into the curriculum. To facilitate its assimilation, the framework was captured in the mnemonic CLEAR, standing for Clarity, Logic, Ethics, Agency, and Relevance. This novel approach provides insight into the scientific review process at CDC, but also could be applied more broadly to improve the quality of public health science. | Our framework includes a three-level comment structure (Table 1) that prioritizes comments for author response. The most important distinction is between comments that require action by the author to correct errors of fact or policy misstatements (level 1) and comments intended to improve clarity or editorial changes (levels 2 and 3), for which the author has some discretion in responding. Use of the three-level comment system allows reviewers to refine their reviewing style and focus on communicating level 1 issues to the author. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure