ApprovedbyOfficialMethods Board, November 13, 2008
ApprovedbyAOACBoardof Directors, December 9, 2008
AppealsProcessAppended–September 2009
RevisedbyAOACBoardof Directors,May 25, 2011
Page 3 of 6
If aPoolmember being considered to serve on anyparticular panel is an author, or
his/her laboratory is the source of amethod under consideration by thePanel, theymust
so indicate to theCSOorOMBChair. At the discretion of theCSOorOMB, the names
of suchPoolmembersmaybe removed from consideration, or theymaybe considered to
serve on theERPwith the understanding that a deliberate effort will be required to avoid
anyknown or potential conflicts of interest. In these latter cases, assignments of
individualmethods for peer reviewwill bemade in such awayby theChair that ERP
memberswill not review anymethod forwhich they are an author or co-author, or for
which their laboratory is the source; and,most importantly, theChairwill require that
they abstain from voting on such amethod during the finalmethod selection process.
TheCSOorOMBmay also allowPoolmembers that qualifyunder the requirements of
expert reviewers, but forwhom there is a known or potential conflict of interest to be
present as an observer on anyparticular Panel. In these cases, and only at the discretion
of theChair, observersmayprovide comments, but only if andwhen called upon by the
Chair to do so.
Non-disclosureStatement: Allmembers of anERPmust have signed theAOAC
VolunteerAcceptance Form. For certain contracts, eachPoolmember or observer
chosenmaybe asked to sign a non-disclosure statement agreeingnot to discuss or
disclose confidential information presented and discussed duringmeetings of theERP.
Meetings of theERP: TheERPChairwill organizemeetings of theERP, to review the
methods and accompanyingvalidation data, score them numerically, and prepare a
summary report. Meetings of theERP can include votingmembers of the Panel, and
non-votingmembers (AOAC staff, stakeholdermembers, and observers).
TheCSOmay assist thePanel Chair in facilitatingmeetings. Themembers of thePanel
are to reviewdistributed documents before themeeting. To facilitate the process, the
Chairmay assign primary and secondary reviewers for eachmethod. The primary and
secondary reviewers prepare a short critique of themethod that is distributed or presented
to theERP. If both the primary and secondary reviewers conclude that themethod
shouldnot be considered further, theERPChairmay call for a vote by the Panel; if a
unanimous vote to drop amethodwithout further discussion results, theChair removes
themethod from further consideration. ThePanel then discusses each of the remaining
methods in turn.
MethodSelectionProcess: TheERPwill evaluate all of themethods in a scientifically
unbiasedmanner.
Occasionally, a large number of analyticalmethods of variable quality are encountered.
When this occurs, the following “pre-screening” procedure is suggested to eliminate
methods that are not satisfactory. TheChair of theERPwith the assistance of at least one
othermember of theERPmay review all of themethods and remove unsatisfactory
methods from consideration. The remainder of themethodswould be sent to theERP
members for review.
