About CES4Health

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate all products according to the criteria below. For more information about the review process, click here.

Clear goals - the degree to which the authors state the purpose of the product, its intended audience/users and clear goals and objectives.

Adequate preparation - the degree to which the authors appropriately reference or build upon prior work in the area.

Methodological rigor - the degree to which the authors justify the appropriateness of methods chosen with respect to the goals, questions and context of the work, as well as the degree to which authors effectively incorporate community and academic/institutional expertise in the development of the product or the project that resulted in the product.

Significance - the degree to which the work adds to existing knowledge and benefits communities.

Effective presentation - the clarity of the presentation style, the accuracy of the product content, and the appropriateness of language and visual aides for diverse audiences (avoiding jargon and unexplained acronyms, for example).

Reflective critique - the degree to which authors provide critical reflection about the work, informed by both academic/institutional and community feedback. Authors are strongly encouraged to provide evaluation data to support the stated significance of the work.

Ethical behavior - the degree to which authors provide evidence for a collaborative approach characterized by mutual respect, shared work, and shared credit (and approval by an institutional review board and/or community-based review mechanism, if applicable).