\n•\tCover a clearly outlined topic.
\n•\tInclude an introduction or executive summary.
\n•\tBe of sufficient length to allow considered discussion of the topic and clearly outline the ICS position usually at least 5-6 pages long.
\n•\tContain educational, practical, reliable, and useful information.
\n•\tProvide independently verifiable facts, on which to base opinion.
\n•\tBe published in NeuroUrology & Urodynamics (NAU) and any other designation of another publication or governmental body (submit as Sounding Board Article ).
Creation of Working/Committees
\nPlease follow the SOP for creation of a working group here.
Disclosure and sponsorship guidelines
\nPlease follow the ICS SOP for Disclosure and sponsorship when creating content here
White paper creation procedure\n
|Proposal Stage\n||Creation of committee/working group/individual to prepare proposal.\n||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.\n|
|Proposal Stage\n||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.\n||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.\n|
|Creation of working group\n||Applications are made transparent and in accordance with the SOP.\n||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.\n|
|Working Group selection\n||Review working group applications\n||This is undertaken by the Working Group chair and is in accordance with the Working Group Creation SOP\n|
|Preparatory Stage\n||Working Group is constituted. Working group prepares content and where relevant reviews the literature and prepares the manuscript according to the ‘PRISMA -checklist/guidelines’.\n||Office will assist with creating online fora for easy discussion and monitoring/chasing if required.\n|
|Preparatory Stage\n||Working group prepares content and where relevant reviews the literature and prepares the manuscript according to the ‘PRISMA -checklist/guidelines’.\n||Office will assist with creating online fora for easy discussion and monitoring/chasing if required.\n|
|Content Review Stage\n||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.\n||The committees and experts should respond within 2 weeks with appropriate feedback.\n|
|Final Review Stage\n||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.\n||These Committees should respond within 2 weeks.\n|
|NAU pre-sign off\n||The manuscript is sent to the Editor of NAU\n||The Editor should respond within 2 weeks\n|
|Sign off\n||The Board of Trustees are to have final review and sign off.\n||The Board of Trustees should sign off within 1 week or advise of any final adjustments needed.\n|
|Publication Stage\n||Once approved by the Board of Trustees the paper can be sent for publication in the ICS Journal NAU.\n||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.\n|
|Implementation Stage\n||Once completed the ICS office will disseminate the content via the ICS website, social media and other outlets.\n||\n|
Standard text for title of report for submission to NAU.
\n•\tICS White Paper: [Title]: from the XXXX Committee of the International Continence Society
\n•\tICS White Paper: [Title]: from the XXXX Working Group of the International Continence Society