Prior Review and Right to Edit Sample Clauses

Prior Review and Right to Edit. Before submitting the Independent Submission to a publisher, reviewer, or other outside party, the Institution must (a) submit the proposed Independent Submission to the Sponsor and allow the Sponsor at least sixty (60) days to review and provide comments; (b) the Institution shall, as requested by the Sponsor, delete all references to Confidential Information (excepting the results of the Study obtained by the Institution ); (c) the Institution shall consider the Sponsor’s comments and proposed revisions in good faith; and (d) if at any point during the initial sixty (60) day review the Sponsor so requests, the Institution shall delay the publication or presentation of the Independent Submission for up to sixty (60) additional days in order to permit the Sponsor time to obtain Intellectual Property protections. 6.2 Předchozí kontrola a právo editace. Před předložením nezávislého podání vydavateli, recenzentovi nebo externí straně musí zdravotnické zařízení a) předložit navrhované nezávislé podání zadavateli minimálně šedesát (60) dnů předem ke kontrole a okomentování, b) zdravotnické zařízení na žádost zadavatele odstraní všechny odkazy na důvěrné informace (s výjimkou výsledků studie, které zdravotnické zařízení získá), c) zdravotnické zařízení v dobré víře zváží komentáře a navržené úpravy zadavatele a d) pokud o to zadavatel kdykoliv v průběhu prvních šedesáti (60) dnů kontroly požádá, odloží zdravotnické zařízení zveřejnění či prezentaci nezávislého podání o dalších až šedesát (60) dnů, aby zadavateli umožnil zajistit si ochranu svého duševního vlastnictví.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Prior Review and Right to Edit. Before submitting the Independent Submission to a publisher, reviewer, or other outside party, the Site must (a) submit the proposed Independent Submission to the Sponsor and allow the Sponsor at least sixty (60) days to review and provide comments; (b) the Site shall, as requested by the Sponsor, delete all references to Confidential Information (excepting the results of the Study obtained by the Site); (c) the Site shall consider the Sponsor’s comments and proposed revisions in good faith; and (d) if at any point during the initial sixty (60) day review the Sponsor so requests, the Site shall delay the publication or presentation of the Independent Submission for up to sixty (60) additional days in order to permit the Sponsor time to obtain Intellectual Property protections.

Related to Prior Review and Right to Edit

  • Prior Review (a) With respect to each contract for the employment of consulting firms estimated to cost the equivalent of $100,000 or more, the procedures set forth in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of Appendix 1 to the Consultant Guidelines shall apply.

  • Ongoing Review and Revisions As set forth in Section 35.7, the Parties have agreed to the coordination and exchange of data and information under this Agreement to enhance system reliability and efficient market operations as systems exist and are contemplated as of the Effective Date. The Parties expect that these systems and the technology applicable to these systems and to the collection and exchange of data will change from time to time throughout the term of this Agreement. The Parties agree that the objectives of this Agreement can be fulfilled efficiently and economically only if the Parties, from time to time, review and, as appropriate, revise the requirements stated herein in response to such changes, including deleting, adding, or revising requirements and protocols. Each Party will negotiate in good faith in response to such revisions the other Party may propose from time to time. Nothing in this Agreement, however, shall require any Party to reach agreement with respect to any such changes, or to purchase, install, or otherwise implement new equipment, software, or devices, or functions, except as required to perform this Agreement.

  • OIG INSPECTION, AUDIT, AND REVIEW RIGHTS ‌ In addition to any other rights OIG may have by statute, regulation, or contract, OIG or its duly authorized representative(s) may conduct interviews, examine or request copies of Xxxxxx’x books, records, and other documents and supporting materials and/or conduct on-site reviews of any of Xxxxxx’x locations for the purpose of verifying and evaluating: (a) Xxxxxx’x compliance with the terms of this IA and (b) Xxxxxx’x compliance with the requirements of the Federal health care programs. The documentation described above shall be made available by Xxxxxx to OIG or its duly authorized representative(s) at all reasonable times for inspection, audit, and/or reproduction. Furthermore, for purposes of this provision, OIG or its duly authorized representative(s) may interview Xxxxxx and any of Xxxxxx’x employees or contractors who consent to be interviewed at the individual’s place of business during normal business hours or at such other place and time as may be mutually agreed upon between the individual and OIG. Xxxxxx shall assist OIG or its duly authorized representative(s) in contacting and arranging interviews with such individuals upon OIG’s request. Xxxxxx’x employees and contractors may elect to be interviewed with or without a representative of Xxxxxx present.

  • Review Rights The State and the U.S. Department of Transportation, when federal funds are involved, and any of their authorized representatives shall have the right at all reasonable times to review or otherwise evaluate the work performed hereunder and the premises in which it is being performed.

  • Independent Review and Inspection The Owner may undertake independent inspection of the installation of the Work. Such independent inspector shall operate on behalf of the Owner and shall act to protect the best interests of the Owner.

  • Right of Review and Audit Upon request by the EA, Contractor shall provide the EA with copies of its policies and related procedures that pertain to the protection of PII. It may be made available in a form that does not violate Contractor’s own information security policies, confidentiality obligations, and applicable laws. In addition, Contractor may be required to undergo an audit of its privacy and security safeguards, measures and controls as it pertains to alignment with the requirements of New York State laws and regulations, the EA’s policies applicable to Contractor, and alignment with the NIST Cybersecurity Framework performed by an independent third party at Contractor’s expense, and provide the audit report to the EA. Contractor may provide the EA with a recent industry standard independent audit report on Contractor’s privacy and security practices as an alternative to undergoing an audit.

  • Agreement Review If, pursuant to section 25.10 (Review of Agreement) of the Bilateral Agreement, the Bilateral Agreement is reviewed after three or five years, or both, of the effective date of the Bilateral Agreement, and any changes to the Bilateral Agreement are required as a result, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as necessary and in a manner that is consistent with such changes.

  • Review and Selection Process The Project Narratives of SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers. The results of the peer review are advisory in nature. The program office and approving official make the final determination for funding based on the following: • Individual awards over $250,000 are approved by the Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council; • Availability of funds; • Equitable distribution of awards in terms of geography (including urban, rural, and remote settings) and balance among populations of focus and program size; • Submission of any required documentation that must be submitted prior to making an award; and • SAMHSA is required to review and consider any information about your organization that is in the Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). In accordance with 45 CFR 75.212, SAMHSA reserves the right not to make an award to an entity if that entity does not meet the minimum qualification standards as described in section 75.205(a)(2). If SAMHSA chooses not to award a fundable application in accordance with 45 CFR 75.205(a)(2), SAMHSA must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (XXX) [currently, FAPIIS]. You may review and comment on any information about your organization that a federal awarding agency previously entered. XXXXXX will consider your comments, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about your organization’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed as described in 45 CFR 75.205 HHS Awarding Agency Review of Risk by Applicants.

  • Peer Assistance and Review Program 1. MCEA and MCPS agree to jointly operate a Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program. The PAR Program is a mechanism for maintaining systemwide quality control and ensuring that all MCPS teachers responsible for teaching students are functioning at or above the high MCPS standards of performance. It provides intensive assistance for any teacher who has not yet achieved that standard or who falls below acceptable standards. Assistance and review are provided to both experienced MCPS teachers in need of significant improvement and teachers in their first year of teaching.

  • Review and Appeal (a) Each Party shall establish or maintain judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative tribunals or procedures for the purpose of the prompt review and, where warranted, correction of final administrative actions regarding matters covered by this Treaty. Such tribunals shall be impartial and independent of the office or authority entrusted with administrative enforcement and shall not have any substantial interest in the outcome of the matter.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.