№ lp_1_05958
File format: docx
Character count: 3051
File size: 27 KB
This document provides guidelines for authors to include transparency statements regarding the registration, analytic plan, data availability, analytic code, and materials used in research studies.
Note:
Year
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Portsmouth, NH
Subject:
Healthcare Technology, EHR, Transparency
Document Type:
Letter
Organization / Institution:
Altea Healthcare
Author:
Michael Mai
Target Audience:
Drummond Group
Period of Validity:
Indefinite
Approval Date:
07/21/2023
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2024
Event date:
23 October 2024
Event type:
Judicial training event
Subject matter:
Transparency in family court proceedings
Legal framework referenced:
Administration of Justice Act 1960; Children Act 1989; Family Procedure Rules 2010
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Court context:
Family Court and High Court (Family Division)
Author / speaker:
His Honour Judge Talbott
Organising body:
Sussex Family Justice Board
Intended audience:
Judges, advocates, legal professionals, journalists and legal bloggers
Document type:
Training presentation and guidance notes
Related initiatives:
Family Court Transparency Pilot
Includes annex:
Template Transparency Order
Judicial guidance cited:
Practice Guidance on Publication of Judgments (19 June 2024)
Case law referenced:
Griffiths v Tickle [2021] EWCA Civ 1882; Tickle v Herefordshire CC [2022] EWHC 1017; Hannah Summers & Anor v White & Ors [2024] EWFC 182
Year:
2018
Region / city:
Togo
Theme:
Climate Change
Document type:
Project Identification Form
Organ / institution:
UN Environment
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Not specified
Duration:
36 months
Approval date:
Not specified
Amendment date:
Not specified
Year:
2024
Region / City:
United States
Subject:
Financial Value Transparency, Gainful Employment
Document Type:
User Guide
Organization / Institution:
National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)
Author:
Unknown
Target Audience:
Educational Institutions, Financial Aid Offices
Period of Validity:
2024-2026
Approval Date:
June 2024
Date of Amendments:
June 2024
Year:
2024
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Financial Value Transparency, Gainful Employment, Program Reporting
Document Type:
User Guide
Institution:
National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Educational institutions, program administrators, NSLDS users
Period of Validity:
June 2024 and onward
Approval Date:
June 2024
Modification Date:
June 2024
Year:
2021
Country:
Montenegro
Topic:
Climate Change, Transparency, Nationally Determined Contributions
Document Type:
Project Document
Implementing Agency:
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Author:
UNDP
Target Audience:
National and local government institutions, stakeholders in climate change adaptation and mitigation
Period:
01 October 2021 - 30 September 2025
Approval Date:
TBD
Date of Changes:
TBD
Year:
2017
Region / City:
China
Theme:
Budget Transparency
Document Type:
Policy Note
Organization:
World Bank
Author:
Carolina Luisa Vaira, Min Zhao
Target Audience:
Governments, policy makers, researchers, international organizations
Period of validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Serbia
Theme:
Climate Change, Transparency, Monitoring and Reporting
Document Type:
Report
Agency / Institution:
UNDP
Author:
Dalibor Kysela, Mirjana Strugar
Target Audience:
Government officials, environmental stakeholders, international organizations
Period of validity:
March 2021 – March 2022
Approval Date:
18 May 2018
Date of last modification:
January – February 2021
Note:
Contextual Description
Year:
N/A
Region / City:
N/A
Theme:
Research transparency
Document type:
Research guidelines
Institution:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target audience:
Researchers, academic publishers
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Modification date:
N/A
Contextual description:
A set of guidelines for researchers to transparently report on various aspects of their research practices, including study registration, analytic plans, data availability, and materials availability.
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Ellensburg, Washington
Topic:
Paramedic Education, Medical Program
Document Type:
Student Resource, Program Guide
Institution:
Central Washington University
Author:
Central Washington University Paramedic Program
Target Audience:
Prospective and current paramedic students
Period of Validity:
2025-2026 Academic Year
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Liberia
Topic:
Extractive industries transparency
Document Type:
Annual Report
Institution:
Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (LEITI)
Author:
LEITI Secretariat
Target Audience:
Government, civil society organizations, private sector, international partners
Period of Action:
2025
Date of Approval:
2025
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2025
Document Type:
Policy
Sector:
Financial Services / Corporate Compliance
Legislation Reference:
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, Corporate Offences of Failure to Prevent Criminal Facilitation of Tax Evasion
Version:
3.0
Previous Versions:
2.0, 1.0
Policy Owner:
[Insert Firm Name/Logo]
Approval Date:
11/2025
Review Period:
Annually
Scope:
Incorporated bodies and partnerships, including small and large firms
Training Requirement:
Annual staff fraud awareness training and induction
Data Security Measures:
Required as part of fraud prevention
Governance:
Board/Partner/Senior Management oversight and review
Supporting Documents:
Home Office and HMRC guidance, FCA Financial Crime Guide
Note:
Year
Topic:
Light penetration, Secchi depth, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), environmental monitoring
Document Type:
Technical Guide
Target Audience:
Environmental scientists, researchers, field technicians
Year:
2000
Region / City:
Birmingham
Theme:
Transparency, Data Protection, Freedom of Information
Document Type:
Request Form
Organization / Institution:
Solicitors Regulation Authority
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
General Public
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Amendments:
N/A
Year:
Not provided
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Research ethics, manuscript submission
Document type:
Template
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Authors submitting research articles
Period of validity:
Not provided
Approval date:
Not specified
Date of changes:
Not specified
Year:
2026
Document Type:
Instructional Template
Audience:
Authors submitting manuscripts to journals
Topics:
Research ethics, Author contributions, Use of AI and LLMs, Conflicts of interest, Funding, Data availability
Organization:
Academic Publishing
Mandatory Sections:
Acknowledgments, Research ethics, Informed consent, Author contributions, Use of LLM, AI and MLT, Conflict of interest, Research funding, Data availability
Optional Sections:
Consultant or advisory role, Role of sponsor, Employment or leadership, Honorarium, Patents, Other remuneration, Software availability, Clinical trial registration
Year:
2013
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Dependency Claims, Military Benefits
Document Type:
Justification Statement
Organization / Institution:
Department of Defense
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Military members applying for dependency benefits
Effective Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
June 11, 2013
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / City:
United States
Subject:
Telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment representations
Document Type:
Certification Form
Organ / Institution:
U.S. Government
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
U.S. Government contractors
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters