This paper specifies the procedure which should be followed in order to propose and produce a white paper relevant to ICS expertise. Normally, ICS white papers will be commissioned by the Board of Trustees or by ICS committees.
Definition: A white paper is an article that sets out an organisation's position or philosophy about a social, political, or other subject, or a not-too-detailed technical explanation of an architecture, framework, or product technology. Typically, a white paper explains the results, conclusions, or construction resulting from some organised committee or research collaboration or design and development effort.
It is noted that the person(s) who submit the application to the Board of Trustees will be the working group chair. The Board will assess at the time of submission that the person(s) are of good character and are upstanding members of the ICS. In addition, in order to preserve the integrity of the peer review process of NAU, while allowing fast track publishing of ICS work, the content should be reviewed and approved by any relevant ICS Committees and Institutes, the ICS Board of Trustees, and 3-4 separate peer reviewers who are not part of the working group. In addition, the final draft will be peer reviewed by the ICS membership at large for the purposes of feedback.
Working /Committee groups which wish to produce a white paper for the ICS should adhere to the process specified in this document.
The final product should:
• Cover a clearly outlined topic.
• Include an introduction or executive summary.
• Be of sufficient length to allow considered discussion of the topic and clearly outline the ICS position usually at least 5-6 pages long.
• Contain educational, practical, reliable, and useful information.
• Provide independently verifiable facts, on which to base opinion.
• Be published in NeuroUrology & Urodynamics (NAU) and any other designation of another publication or governmental body (submit as Sounding Board Article ).
Creation of Working/Committees
Please follow the SOP for creation of a working group here.
Disclosure and sponsorship guidelines
Please follow the ICS SOP for Disclosure and sponsorship when creating content here
- The white paper shall clearly set out the ICS position on the subject under consideration in the conclusion.
- The white paper may include a proposal for action. Each action point should be clearly defined with a proposed body or individual responsible for taking the lead on taking the specified action
- The ICS will not provide financial support for face to face meetings of any group.
- The ICS office will assist with setting up a forum for the group to exchange ideas and content for review. The office can also provide support for teleconferences or WebEx meetings, upon approval of a budget request.
- Normally, from its inception, a white paper should take no longer than 6 months to prepare.
White paper creation procedure
|Proposal Stage||Creation of committee/working group/individual to prepare proposal.||This can be a committee that has decided to prepare a module, an Institute Director or sub group of a School, or a group of ICS members. This can be Board-Initiated, a committee who have decided to prepare a white paper or a group of ICS members.|
|Proposal Stage||Proposal is sent to ICS office. Proposal format is according to the ICS Content Proposal Form Budget and proposal is sent to ICS office. The proposal should explain the need for the paper in no more than 2 pages specifying aims and objectives, learning outcomes, author expertise, target audience and requirement for content. The independent reviewers should be requested at this stage for approval and selected by the first author. The group should indicate 3-4 independent reviewers or ask for assignment. These reviewers are notified that they have been selected by the office.It is acceptable to ask for recommendations for reviewers and unlike standard academic review, it is acceptable to involve the independent reviewers for input early in the process. Budget help will only cover the costs of filming and editing costs as well as modest travel expenses for same. Collaborating societies should be considered and proposed at this stage.||The ICS Office will ensure no overlap with other working groups and will advise the appropriate committee should this be the case. The ICS office will notify Board of Trustees, Education and Standardisation committee and relevant committee and Institute as well as the independent reviewers of proposal in progress. Suggestions for Collaborating Societies should be considered here.|
|Creation of working group||Applications are made transparent and in accordance with the SOP.||Call for applications from the ICS Membership in conjunction with ICS office. If WG is to include other societies then ICS office to work in conjunction with other Society administration office to make joint call for members.|
|Working Group selection||Review working group applications||This is undertaken by the Working Group chair and is in accordance with the Working Group Creation SOP|
|Preparatory Stage||Working group prepares content and where relevant reviews the literature and prepares the manuscript. Where relevant a DELPHI system and ‘PRISMA -checklist/guidelines’ should be used.||Office will assist with creating online fora for easy discussion and monitoring/chasing if required.|
|Peer Review Stage||Draft paper is placed on ICS website and presented to ICS membership for comment. In addition, where possible there will be an open session meeting at the ICS Annual Meeting to allow for open discussion of the document. Special email to be sent to Board of Trustees so that they can comment on content at this appropriate time.||Comments by ICS members and stakeholders. Special email to be sent to Board of Trustees so that they can comment on content at this appropriate time. If they are an expert within the field being discussed then their expert knowledge is encouraged.Document should be reviewed within 3 weeks.|
|Content Review Stage||Manuscript is sent to the 3-4 independent ICS experts as well as the appropriate Institute Directors or Appointees and any relevant ICS Committee if relevant. The Ethics Committee should be included for any potentially controversial topics. The independent reviewers are to provide constructive feedback to the authors. This feedback will need to be seriously considered and incorporated into the manuscript where appropriate.||The committees and experts should respond within 2 weeks with appropriate feedback.|
|Final Review Stage||The final revised manuscript and slide set are sent to the Education, Standardisation Steering Committee, and any relevant ICS Committee. It should be noted that the Education and Standardisation committees are not commenting on the content of the module but are reviewing for educational value and terminology adherence.||These Committees should respond within 2 weeks.|
|NAU pre-sign off||The manuscript is sent to the Editor of NAU||The Editor should respond within 2 weeks|
|Sign off||The Board of Trustees are to have final review and sign off.||The Board of Trustees should sign off within 1 week or advise of any final adjustments needed.|
|Publication Stage||Once approved by the Board of Trustees the paper can be sent for publication in the ICS Journal NAU.||Article submitted to NAU should clearly reference International Continence Society (ICS) and the Committee involved in the creation of the paper followed by the authors.|
|Implementation Stage||Once completed the ICS office will disseminate the content via the ICS website, social media and other outlets.|
Standard text for title of report for submission to NAU.
• ICS White Paper: [Title]: from the XXXX Committee of the International Continence Society
• ICS White Paper: [Title]: from the XXXX Working Group of the International Continence Society