Difference between revisions of "Module Review Process"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
We've agreed on a three step process: | We've agreed on a three step process: | ||
| − | # Subject domain experts will conduct a peer review. Reviewers will review modules for internal logic, accuracy, and completeness with respect to the subject of the module and the concepts within it. | + | # Subject domain experts will conduct a [[Module_Review_Criteria | peer review]]. Reviewers will review modules for internal logic, accuracy, and completeness with respect to the subject of the module and the concepts within it. |
# An editorial review of the module in terms of its fit and placement within the course outline as well as how the language, illustrations, and concepts covered harmonize with the other modules | # An editorial review of the module in terms of its fit and placement within the course outline as well as how the language, illustrations, and concepts covered harmonize with the other modules | ||
# A technical editor will review the modules for grammatical and spelling errors, etc. | # A technical editor will review the modules for grammatical and spelling errors, etc. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:21, March 23, 2012
Back to the Data Management Training home page
We've agreed on a three step process:
- Subject domain experts will conduct a peer review. Reviewers will review modules for internal logic, accuracy, and completeness with respect to the subject of the module and the concepts within it.
- An editorial review of the module in terms of its fit and placement within the course outline as well as how the language, illustrations, and concepts covered harmonize with the other modules
- A technical editor will review the modules for grammatical and spelling errors, etc.
