1. General

a. The purpose of editorial review and approval at NIST is to ensure that an effective quality management system is in place and functioning during the process that ends with a technical manuscript.

b. OU Directors are responsible to the Director of NIST for the quality of the publications produced by their OU. The NIST Quality Management System for technical publications requires thorough review and approval within the originating OU and additional approval by an Editorial Review Board that is responsible to the Director of NIST.

(1) The originating OU for a NIST technical publication is the OU of the senior NIST author unless there is agreement to a different arrangement. As a NIST policy requirement, the originating OU has primary responsibility for the editorial quality of a manuscript as well as the quality of the technical information to be published. Review and approval within the originating OU are required to ensure that manuscript preparation is complete and that revisions necessary to meet NIST quality requirements have been accomplished.

(2) Editorial Review Board review and approval are the final step in the NIST Quality Management System for technical documents that will be, or may be, distributed to the public. Manuscripts accepted for Editorial Review Board review are expected to be free of routine errors and requirements for essential revisions. The persons performing the Editorial Review Board review and approval must not be involved in the technical work, the documentation, or the related supervision. Decisions of the Editorial Review Board may be appealed through the responsible OU Director to the NIST Deputy Director. The policy principles (see Section 4.09.03 of this subchapter) that support the Editorial Review Board responsibilities are:

(a) The final product of research is communicated information. Quality in this final product cannot be fully achieved by inspection at the end of the process, i.e., through the final review of every publication, but it must be built in at all stages of production;

(b) Criticism by impartial, objective, potential users of the information (i.e., by those not involved in its creation) is an essential part of a process that will create a quality product; and

(c) The function of the Editorial Review Board is to ensure that a quality production process is in place and that such criticism has taken place during the process.

c. Manuscript review and approval within the originating OU must be complete, with all substantial revisions incorporated into the typed text, before a manuscript is submitted for Editorial Review Board review and approval. Most routine errors in typing, spelling, grammar, organization, format, technical expression, and policy should have been detected and corrected in technical manuscripts before submission for Editorial Review Board review; if excessive errors of this kind are present, the manuscript may be returned to the originating OU for corrections before it is accepted for Editorial Review Board review.

d. Authority for approval and release of manuscripts is delegated to the Chairperson of the Washington Editorial Review Board (WERB) for technical manuscripts produced at Gaithersburg. For Boulder manuscripts, this authority is delegated to the Chairpersons of the Boulder Editorial Review Board (BERB) and the JILA Editorial Review Board (JERB).

Note: Under the authority delegated to them by the Director of NIST, OU Directors may require their final approval following Editorial Review Board approval. If this option is exercised, and additional changes in the manuscript are needed, the Editorial Review Board must be advised.

e. The Editorial Review Boards (WERB, BERB, and JERB) are NIST Standing Administrative Committees as defined in Subchapter 3.01. They are established by and responsible to, the NIST Director in accordance with the charter (Subchapter 3.01, Appendix A) describing the functions and membership. Voting members of Editorial Review Boards must be employees with permanent appointments or retired NIST staff members. (See Subchapter 3.01.)

f. Editorial Review Board members are appointed by the Chairperson as specified in Subchapter 3.01, Appendix A. Membership includes representatives nominated by OU Directors and up to three at-large members selected by the Chairperson of the Editorial Review Board. OU Directors may be asked to nominate additional representatives to ensure the presence of competence in all technical areas that produce significant numbers of publications. All Editorial Review Board members appointed by the Chairperson and who meet the requirements of Subchapter 3.01 serve as voting members. In addition to their competence and experience in specific areas of science and technology, members of the Editorial Review Boards are expected to be familiar with NIST policies and editorial practices.

2. Editorial Review Criteria

a. All technical manuscripts are reviewed for compliance with technical requirements, policy, and editorial quality. When necessary, manuscripts are also reviewed for compliance with legal requirements. Review requirements include:

(1) Technical Review: Critical evaluation of the technical content and methodology, statistical treatment of data, uncertainty analysis, use of appropriate reference data and units, and bibliographic references;

(2) Policy Review: Examination for consistency with NIST statutory authority and operating policies, appropriateness of selected medium for publication, appropriate recognition of sponsors, institutions and persons, and other relevant matters;

(3) Editorial Review: Examination for correct use of language, freedom from jargon, clarity of expression, effective organization, good format, appropriate title, adequate references, indexing, citations, footnotes, and figures; writing quality, spelling, conformance with Appendix D (required use of SI units), typography, and correct data on Form NIST-114, Manuscript Review and Approval; and

(4) Legal Review: Examination by the NIST Counsel when required as determined by the supervisor, the OU Director, or the Editorial Review Board.

b. When manuscripts include topics that may be sensitive or material that is likely to attract unusual public interest, the originating OU or the Editorial Review Board may take additional steps to ensure that appropriate NIST managers and officers are informed.

3. Technical Manuscript Review

a. Specific procedures for the review of technical manuscripts within the producing OU are determined by the OU Director. In most cases, the related responsibilities will be delegated to the division level. The review within the originating OU must thoroughly address technical content, editorial quality, and policy issues as defined in this subchapter. The required Form NIST-114 must be completed and signed in the appropriate places. The approval signature of the division chief must be present as an indication that all the actions required within the OU have been completed. The OU Director (or, if not available, the Deputy OU Director) must personally approve manuscripts:

(1) That report new values of, or methods for the determination of, basic physical standards or fundamental constants;

(2) That report information that may be sensitive or likely to draw unusual public attention to NIST;

(3) That report information that directly concerns the Department of Commerce, the Administration, or the Congress;

(4) That report information about commercial products; and

(5) That are intended for technical books or chapters for technical books.

b. In addition to the approvals required in these specific cases, OU Directors have the prerogative to approve additional specific factors that enter into the preparation of manuscripts. Such approvals may not be used in lieu of the requirement for the Level 2 review by the Editorial Review Board as defined below.

c. Authors, division chiefs, division readers, and others involved in the review of manuscripts within the originating OU are encouraged to suggest readers for the review by the Editorial Review Board. Persons suggested should be technically informed about the subject, objective, and removed from any conflict of interest that might arise from working in the organizational environment(s) of the author(s). Based on established internal policy, Washington Editorial Review Board readers are normally not members of the originating division; Boulder Editorial Review Board readers normally are selected from within the originating division.

4. Technical Manuscript Review: Editorial Review Boards

a. Details of Editorial Review Board procedures are influenced by the volumes of manuscripts submitted for review. However, in all cases manuscripts presented to the Editorial Review Board must be accompanied by completed Form NIST-114. In every case, the signatures of the division chief and division reader must be present, indicating that the manuscript has been reviewed and approved in the originating OU. Manuscripts may be submitted to the Editorial Review Board by the author or by the originating OU. They may be submitted to the Editorial Review Board Executive Secretariat or to the Editorial Review Board member most concerned with the subject matter involved; normally this person will "sponsor" the manuscript during the Editorial Review Board review.

b. The Editorial Review Board sponsor of a manuscript expedites the progress of the manuscript through Editorial Review Board review and approval, and serves as the point of contact with the Editorial Review Board for authors and readers. When necessary, the sponsor or the Editorial Review Board Executive Secretariat arbitrates differences of opinion between readers and authors, recommends additional readers if required, or takes other steps to resolve issues. Sponsors present their findings and recommendations at Editorial Review Board meetings. The recommendations may include the need for additional technical review, legal review, or special management review.

c. At least one reader is designated for each technical manuscript that is accepted for Editorial Review Board action. More than one reader may be designated when different scientific or technical disciplines are involved in the subject (which is often the case, for example, in connection with the statistical treatment of experimental data). The suggestions of authors and managers in the originating OU are usually followed by the Editorial Review Board in the selection of readers. Technical competence in the subject and objectivity are the important factors in this connection. To ensure objectivity, readers must not have a personal interest in the publication of the manuscript. All members of the NIST professional staff are expected to accept assignments to review technical manuscripts as an integral part of their duties. Occasionally it may be necessary or desirable to select a reader from outside of NIST to ensure adequate technical competence.

d. Editorial Review Board readers are encouraged to communicate directly with authors regarding their comments and suggestions. However, in unusual cases, readers may choose to remain anonymous. In this case, unsigned comments are sent to the author(s) by the Editorial Review Board.

5. Special Editorial Review Board Actions

a. The procedure outlined above may not be appropriate or necessary for all manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Review Board for action. On the decision of the Chairperson, such manuscripts may be NOTED at a meeting of the Editorial Review Board; they include, for example:

(1) Manuscripts for publication in the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) that do not include NIST authors and that have been thoroughly reviewed during the JPCRD editorial process and found to meet the strict requirements of the JPCRD. A statement confirming such a finding and signed by the Editor of the JPCRD must be present together with an analysis of the comments and criticisms of reviewers. In addition, a completed Form NIST-114 must be submitted. In these cases, an Editorial Review Board sponsor will be designated to determine that NIST editorial policy requirements have been met and that NOTING is appropriate.

In the case of JPCRD manuscripts that include one or more NIST authors, the normal Editorial Review Board review and approval procedures are required before the JCPRD review, and Form NIST-114 must be signed by the responsible NIST division chief. JCPRD manuscripts that include NIST authors are treated the same as NIST manuscripts for other outside journals.

(2) Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) that have already been through the standards development cycle, reviewed, and received Secretarial approval; in these cases an Editorial Review Board sponsor will be named to determine that NIST policy requirements have been met and that NOTING is appropriate.

(3) Prototype formats and texts for calibration and test reports that have been formally reviewed and approved by the Measurement Services Advisory Group (MSAG). A statement confirming the scope of the MSAG review must be present. In such cases, an Editorial Review Board sponsor will determine that NIST editorial policy requirements have been met and that NOTING is appropriate.

(4) Bibliographies and indexes that are published routinely to update an established series of such publications; in these cases an Editorial Review Board sponsor will be designated to determine that new policy considerations are not present and that NOTING is appropriate.

(5) Short abstracts for talks or short contributions to newsletters that can be read by an Editorial Review Board member, acting as sponsor, during the meeting at which they are first submitted.

(6) Articles, abstracts for talks, and other communications that are extracted from previously approved publications.

6. Accelerated Editorial Review Board Procedure

Sometimes it is necessary to reduce the delays of the typical manuscript review and approval process to the shortest possible time. The Editorial Review Board will cooperate with authors when special requirements for accelerated action exist. In such cases, authors should discuss the circumstances with the Chairperson of the Editorial Review Board, with the Editorial Review Board Executive Secretariat, or with the member of the Editorial Review Board who is most concerned with the subject of the manuscript (i.e., the appropriate sponsor). With cooperative action by the author(s), the sponsor, and the reader, it will usually be possible to complete the review and approval in a single meeting cycle of the Editorial Review Board.