Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Member Feedback Requested: HPHS Review Guidelines

The HPHS Executive Committee has drafted the below guideline for future society sponsored manuscripts (e.g. best practices) and invites member feedback on this topic.  Please use the comment form at the end of this post.

HPHS reviews: guidelines
Draft for member feedback

The emphasis of HPHS sponsored manuscripts will be on practice-based issues that are not well addressed in research articles, review articles, CAP protocols, book chapters etc. Articles by societies typically receive more attention than non-society backed articles and can be useful to disseminate practical information. The effort of HPHS sponsored articles would be to make a positive contribution and will not be an effort to regulate the practice of liver pathology.


The articles can have one or more of the following goals:
(1) Share patterns in practice with regard to use of terminology, diagnostic criteria, histochemical stains, immunohistochemistry, molecular techniques etc., based on HPHS membership surveys.
(2) Targeted reviews addressing practice-based issues. These could be guidelines, best practices, critical literature review, position papers, consensus statements amongst selected experts, or a combination thereof.


(1) Feedback will be obtained from the members (through newsletter or email) to submit topics for consideration. This can be done on an annual basis or less frequently depending on the need as assessed by the full Executive Committee. Specific feedback can also be obtained from committee chairs.

(2) The final selection of the topic will be done by the Executive Committee.

(3) Once a topic is decided, one (or two) lead authors will be selected by the Executive Committee.

(5) Additional authors can be suggested to the Executive Committee by the lead authors. The aim should be to obtain good representation of the experts on the topic, and to also ensure that the selected authors are enthusiastic about active participation in the authoring process.

(6) Dates and specific roles are decided by the lead author(s) in conjunction with Executive committee. An Executive committee member does not have to be the lead author, but it would be desirable (but not necessary) for one of the Executive committee members to be on the author team to shepherd the project. The lead author will provide update to the Executive Committee on a regular basis (preferably every two months prior to the Executive Committee phone meeting).

(7) The manuscript will be reviewed in a timely fashion by the Executive committee for scientific content and bias. Depending on the expertise, the Committee chairs or other HPHS members can also be invited by the Executive committee to participate in the review process.

(8)After the feedback from the Executive Committee has been addressed, the updated version will be posted on the website for public comment. The final version must be approved by the Executive Committee before submission for publication.

(9) For situations where opinions among experts differ, the goal will be to be inclusive of all points of view and acknowledge differences in opinion.

(10) The Executive will make efforts to ensure broad representation and not restrict authors to specific institutions or perceived groups.  
·         Authors can be selected from traditional academic centers as well as private practices. 
·         To be selected as an author, candidates should have documented expertise in the area or extensive clinical experience.
·         To provide the readers with a reasonable level of practice expertise, there will not be roles for trainees or for pathologists with limited experience in liver pathology (e.g., less than 5 years of independent sign-out of liver specimens)

No comments:

Post a Comment