Independent review

The operator prepares a content item; a separate reviewer decides whether the submitted revision meets the project’s requirements. A review decision names the source item, source revision and reviewer. It holds the decision, date, reason and evidence reference. Pending, Approved, Returned and Rejected have different meanings: a returned item goes back for work, while an approval supports the decision to proceed. The reviewer should explain a return or rejection in the record.

The Content Items and Details workspace shows pending review decisions beside the item’s status and history. This keeps the reviewer oriented to the item being judged. For a journal deposit with a corrected source file, a decision on the original revision cannot simply carry forward to the changed file. The new revision must be reviewed on its own terms.

• Preparation and decision are separate. The reviewer works from the submitted item and its evidence rather than preparing the same case.
• Revision is part of the decision. A change to the item creates a new review question.
• Reasons travel with outcomes. The next operator sees why the item returned or was rejected.

Assign reviewers who are independent of the item preparer. Decide how they receive submitted work and which project policy they apply. Agree the evidence reference format so a decision can be reconciled to the file or source record actually inspected. Reviewers need access to the item, its requirement outcomes, files and prior history, while their edit authority stays with the decision record.

Set a clear rule for when a correction needs a successor revision. A title correction may still affect the identity of a published item; an evidence replacement changes what was reviewed. Define who may mark a content item Decided after approval and who records its delivery reference. Rehearse a return, a rejection and a clean approval with separate accounts.

An operator submits a content item for a project. The reviewer checks its accepted requirements and verifies the supporting file’s source reference. A document is out of date, so the reviewer records Returned with a reason and evidence reference for that revision. The operator assigns a task, obtains the current file and prepares a successor revision. A second reviewer decision approves that new revision. The item can move through the decision stage with both decisions preserved, so the team can see why the first attempt did not pass.

• Pending review decisions — Decisions waiting for the assigned reviewer, with source revision and evidence reference.
• Submitted revisions — Content items awaiting the review handoff.
• Rejected requirements — Requirement lines that explain why preparation needs another pass.

Content intake to decision follows approval. Correction and supersession covers a returned or changed revision.