Review is policy-defined and its status is tracked.
The framework defines the review stages applicable to different object types and tracks their status. This page describes the policy-defined workflow.
Six steps, each of them logged.
1. Editorial proposal
An Associate Editor proposes a new SKO or a revision, defining the clinical question and the reference literature.
2. Source curation
Only indexed peer-reviewed sources, guidelines from recognised societies and systematic reviews are collected.
3. Drafting
The author writes the SKO as an atomic object: synthesis, evidence, level, references. No claim without a source.
4. Internal peer review
When required by policy for the object type, a qualified reviewer performs the review. Review status and any unresolved dissent are tracked.
5. Editorial sign-off
The editorial role defined by the workflow records sign-off when required. Publishability depends on the status required for that object type.
6. Publication and periodic review
The SKO is published with a last-reviewed date and a planned update cadence. New evidence produces new versions.
The conditions that make review valid.
| Dimension | Rule |
|---|---|
| Reviewer anonymity | Internal: reviewer name visible to editors. External: optional anonymity. |
| Conflicts of interest | Mandatory disclosure before every review. |
| Review timelines | Target: first review within 10 business days. |
| Unresolved dissent | Publicly documented inside the SKO or promoted to a Consensus. |
| Accepted sources | Only indexed peer-reviewed + guidelines from recognised societies. |
| Rejected sources | Blogs, forums, sponsored content, commercial communications. |
When peer review produces a legitimate disagreement that cannot be resolved from the literature, the conflict is not hidden. It is documented inside the SKO or, when systemic, promoted to a Consensus document signed by the editorial board.