Prioritization Publication Sample Clauses

Prioritization Publication. For the prioritization of publications the “prioritization publications” button should be clicked on ones. As soon as you do this the first paper that is ready for review will pop-up on the screen the screen should look as in figure 9. There is some information in this screen and some options. The text in the red circle in the figure 9 below indicates whether the current publication is ready for review or already reviewed by indicating “readyforreview” or “reviewed” respectively. When no publications have been assigned to you for review yet the current “ReviewNow” screen will be blank. The arrows on the top left and the top right of the publication box allow you to scroll between publications that have been assigned to you. On the top of the screen (blue circle) there are 3 tabs. The “Reviewed” tab will show you the publications that have been assigned to you and that are already reviewed. The “Remaining” tab will show you the publications that have been assigned to you and that have not been reviewed yet. The “ReviewNow” tab will allow you to review a publication.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Prioritization Publication

  • Prioritization All reported incidents receive a priority number based on the impact and urgency of the service interruption. Impact is determined based on the number of people/departments/buildings that are affected by the interruption or outage. Life-Safety issues are taken into consideration for assessing and assigning priorities. Urgency is based on the acceptable delay to restore the service. Urgency can be critical or high and is determined based on the nature of the service outage. UNM IT may prioritize incoming incident requests as P1 or P2 priority if it meets one or more of the following criteria:  Significant number of people affected;  The level to which work is impaired for individuals;  Academic and Administrative Calendar deadlines;  Significant impact on the delivery of instruction;  Significant risk to safety, law, rule, or policy compliance.

  • zone Information Publication ICANN’s publication of root-zone contact information for the TLD will include Registry Operator and its administrative and technical contacts. Any request to modify the contact information for the Registry Operator must be made in the format specified from time to time by ICANN at xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/domains/root/.

  • Root-­‐zone Information Publication ICANN’s publication of root-­‐zone contact information for the TLD will include Registry Operator and its administrative and technical contacts. Any request to modify the contact information for the Registry Operator must be made in the format specified from time to time by ICANN at xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/domains/root/.

  • ONLINE PUBLIC AUCTION PROCESS 2.1. E-Bidders may browse through the PAH Website and select the properties they wish to bid online.

  • SUPPLIER PUBLICATIONS 4.1 Any marketing materials in relation to this Framework Agreement that that Supplier produces must comply in all respects with the Branding Guidance. The Supplier will periodically update and revise such marketing materials.

  • RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION 34 CONTRACTOR shall not utilize information and/or data received from COUNTY, or arising out 35 of, or developed, as a result of this Agreement for the purpose of personal or professional research, or 36 for publication. 37 //

  • Telephone Service Prioritization; 4.1.4.11.2 Related services for handicapped;

  • Publications All published material and written reports submitted under the Contract must be originally developed material unless otherwise specifically provided in the Contract. When material not originally developed is included in a report in any form, the source shall be identified.

  • 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.

  • AUTHORITY PUBLICATIONS 3.1 The Authority will periodically update and revise marketing materials. The Supplier shall supply current information for inclusion in such marketing materials when required by the Authority.

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