Selection of Reviewers. Unit Managers, in consultation with Academic Supervisors, will produce a list of potential reviewers, and the candidate will produce a list of potential reviewers. Reviewers should be persons qualified by position or discipline to address the candidate’s scholarship or professional activities. For each reviewer, the candidate and the Unit Manager and/or Academic Supervisor will indicate his relationship with the reviewer. The list should not contain reviewers that will compromise the objectivity of the review process; for example, reviewers who are mentors, friends, antagonists or frequent collaborators of either the faculty member or the Academic Supervisor or Unit Manager should not be included. From the list suggested, reviewers will be agreed upon by the candidate and the Academic Supervisor. If consensus cannot be reached, reviewers will be determined in the following way: • the candidate will strike a reviewer from the Academic Supervisor’s/Unit Manager’s list • the Academic Supervisor will strike a reviewer from the candidate’s list • this process will continue until there are two reviewers left on each list. These four will be the chosen reviewers.
Selection of Reviewers. 1. Contractor will contact potential candidates to conduct a peer review of the Hardy Study and the EARIP’s Scientific Subcommittee’s recommendations regarding the “j” charges and determine their interest and ability to participate in the review. Contractor will conduct the selection process independent of any input from the EARIP members or others affiliated with the program.
Selection of Reviewers. The SLP suggests external experts to evaluate each of the proposals.
