Expert selection, independent review, collective review, avoidance of interests and review of objections
The association organizes expert reviews based on the nature of honour selection, project research, achievement review, exhibition projects and professional publishing, so that professional opinions have clear basis, complete procedures and reviewable records.
The task of expert reviewers is to form professional opinions based on established rules and submitted materials. The review conclusion should explain the evaluation dimensions used, the facts that can support the judgment, matters that need to be supplemented or modified, and the scope of application of the conclusion.
The association determines the objects, standards, material scope, participation roles and conclusion methods before each review is initiated. Experts are responsible for professional judgment, and program coordinators are responsible for acceptance, avoidance, recording and notification; matters involving the final award, project establishment, release or appointment shall be confirmed in accordance with the association's corresponding governance procedures.
The review starts with the determination of the rules and reaches a conclusion through expert matching, independent review and collective deliberation; if there are objections or major differences, an independent review will be initiated.
Confirm the review objects, applicable systems, evaluation dimensions, material catalog, time schedule and conclusion type. After acceptance, a unified material version will be used. Reasons for rule changes must be explained and relevant personnel must be notified again.
Formation: review task book, material catalog and evaluation requirementsSelect suitable experts based on professional fields, practice directions, research methods, media experience and working language, and also verify cooperation, teachers and students, employment, relatives, competition and other relationships that may affect independence.
Formation: Expert composition, declaration of interests and avoidance arrangementsExperts review the same version of materials separately, record evidence, questions and judgments according to the evaluation dimensions, and do not replace their own review with the opinions of other experts. When ratings are required, the ratings must be accompanied by textual evidence.
Formation: independent review opinions or scoring recordsConduct cross-review of significant disagreements, conflicts of key facts, missing evidence, or differences in understanding of rules. Material correction is limited to content that is clearly missing or needs to be verified, and does not change the basic scope of the review objects.
Formation: re-evaluation opinions, correction list and explanation of differencesThe review convener organizes a discussion of independent opinions and re-evaluation results, distinguishing between the professional consensus that has been formed, the different opinions that still need to be retained, and the modifications that must be completed, and does not replace professional reasons with a simple majority.
Formation: review records, consensus conclusions and reservationsAccording to the special system confirmation of approval, revised review, suspension, disapproval or other applicable status, the conclusion, main basis, modification requirements, completion deadline and scope of objections can be explained to relevant entities.
Formation: Formal Conclusions, Notice Content, and Disclosure ScopeObjections should be directed to issues of procedure, key facts, material versions, or rule application, and should be reviewed by an appropriate person who was not involved in the original conclusion. Collect rules, materials, statements, opinions, decisions and notification records after completion of processing.
Formation: review decisions, status updates, and complete review filesThe association determines specific evaluation points and material requirements before the start of the special review. Experts form professional conclusions based on the nature of the matter and do not use a set of fixed indicators to replace judgments in different fields.
All review matters also comply with the requirements for declaration of interests, information protection, objection handling and file management to ensure that professional opinions can be verified and traced.
Experts declare relationships that may affect their independent judgment before accepting an assignment. Depending on the nature of the relationship, complete avoidance, limited participation, substitute experts, or additional independent reviews may be adopted; undeclared important relationships may cause relevant opinions to become invalid and the review to be reorganized.
Unpublished works, research materials, personal information and review comments will only be used within the scope of the mandate. Experts are not allowed to copy, disseminate or use it in other projects of themselves and related parties, and should respect attribution, copyright and data usage boundaries.
Objections mainly deal with procedural execution, key facts, material versions and application of rules. The review personnel should maintain necessary independence from the original review and can maintain the original conclusion, request corrections, re-examine after revocation, or adjust the public status.
Applicable rules, material catalogue, statement of interests, independent opinions, review records, conclusions and notices shall be kept in review files. When serious information inaccuracies, rights disputes or procedural disruptions are discovered, the Association may initiate corrections, withdrawals or reconsiderations.
