IDPro Body of Knowledge Review and Publication Process
STEP 1: Article Submission and Acceptance Process
Authors interested in contributing to the IDPro Body of Knowledge should start by reaching out to the IDPro Principal Editor to learn where we most urgently need material. If you want an idea around what topics are on the table, check out the proposed Table of Contents. That document, regularly updated in our GitHub repository, shows the suggested structure of the BoK, as well as what articles are in progress or already published. Any section or subsection that is not already in progress (or published) is fair game and open to both interpretation or modification by an interested and enthusiastic author and the appropriate Topic Shepherd for that section!
Once a topic is selected, the author should create an Abstract (if one isn’t already suggested in the ToC) or an Introduction (if they are building off an existing abstract) and submit that along with a bio to IDPro Principal Editor. The editor will review the proposal with the BoK Committee, offer suggestions with regards to article length, content, and structure, and coordinate the appropriate contract (including IPR, milestone commitments, and an honorarium if necessary) with the author.
Once the paperwork is agreed upon by both parties, it’s time to start writing!
STEP 2: Peer Review
IDPro supports an open and transparent peer-review process: both the name of the reviewer(s) and their review(s) are made available to the author. Oftentimes, a full dialogue starts between the reviewer and the author, to the benefit of both. Once the article is considered ready by both the author and the Principal Editor, it’s time to get other IAM professionals involved. The reviewer is generally selected from the IDPro community and is asked to consider the following:
About the content:
- Is this article relevant, vendor/technology-neutral, and accurate?
- Are you aware of any relevant work that this article should be referencing, and isn’t?
- Is the terminology section clear, and does it tie in well to the main body of the article?
- Does the abstract adequately summarizes the article?
- Are there obvious aspects of plagiarism in the article?
About the writing style:
- Is the document logically structured and does the information flow coherently?
- Is the writing style clear enough that you can envision certification test questions against the material?
About any figures or artwork (if applicable):
- Does the article’s use of tables, charts, figures, images, or diagrams make sense in the context of the article?
- Are any captions or keys missing, or is other additional editing required?
And, finally, any general comments and whether or not the reviewer recommends the article move forward in the publication process.
Depending on how many changes are suggested by the reviewers, the article may go through the peer review process more than once before it moves on to the next stage: review by the IDPro BoK Committee.
STEP 3: BoK Committee & IDPro Board Reviews
By this stage, the document has gone through some critical reviews and is just about ready for publication. This is when the full IDPro BoK Committee and the IDPro Board take a look. These committees have the advantage of seeing the big picture when it comes to the BoK, and often come back with useful feedback that helps make the BoK a well-rounded resource for the community.
The BoK committee takes the first pass, and once that (and any recommended edits) is complete, the IDPro Board has the final say on if the article can be published in the BoK. Each group has two weeks to review and inform the Principal Editor of their decisions.
STEP 4: Publication and Community Comment
With all approvals in place, it’s time to share this article with the rest of the world! If the author has requested an honorarium, this is the point when the Principal Editor will sign off on payment.
When an article is published, a copy will be placed in the IDPros GitHub repository (in addition to the copy published in the BoK itself) to support any community discussion and feedback around the article. At some point in the future, the article will be updated to reflect the feedback received at this point (though possibly by a different author).