From evidence checks to documented expert opinion
Reviews examine accuracy, completeness, technical value and suitability for publication. Each assignment follows its own requirements; this common framework does not replace award-specific rules or a research brief.
The review workflow
- STAGE 01
Submission
Provide the assignment brief, source material and intended disclosure scope.
Applicant / Submission package - STAGE 02
Completeness check
Check core information, attachments and programme fit; identify missing material.
Secretariat / Completeness record - STAGE 03
Expert matching
Match expertise and confirm relevant interests and the scope of participation.
Secretariat and experts / Assignment confirmation - STAGE 04
Independent review
Assess the evidence and distinguish factual findings from recommendations.
Experts / Written comments - STAGE 05
Clarification and recheck
Consolidate comments and, where needed, clarify or revise material with version records.
Applicant and experts / Revision record - STAGE 06
Confirmation and records
Confirm the outcome, destination and disclosure scope; retain opinions and final versions.
Secretariat / Archived record
A distinct focus for each assignment
| Assignment | Review focus | Output and destination |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering cases | Project context, methods, implementation records, quality controls and lessons learned. | Authorised case documentation is considered for the project showcase. |
| Research and white papers | Scope, methods, sources, evidence for conclusions and permissions. | Review comments support eligible research material for the research centre. |
| Forum contributions | Relevance, accuracy, technical quality and presentation permissions. | Accepted material supports the programme, discussion or proceedings. |
| Award submissions | Eligibility, evidence and evaluation criteria under the relevant award rules. | Submissions follow the relevant award’s evaluation and publication procedure. |
Integrity and record management
Conflict management
Experts disclose interests involving an applicant, project organisation or output before participating and recuse from the relevant assessment where required.
Confidentiality and disclosure
Unpublished submissions, internal opinions and sensitive information do not become public automatically. Publication requires an agreed disclosure scope.
Opinions and versions
The Secretariat retains document versions, clarifications and review records so opinions can be traced to the material reviewed.
Corrections and concerns
Submit a specific concern, record reference and supporting information to the Secretariat. Award-specific issues follow the channels specified in the relevant award rules.