Peer Review Committee

Terms of Reference

Peer Review Committee Governance Overview

1.0. Role of the Peer Review Committee

The PRC is not a governing body and its recommendations to the Governing Board are non- binding; however, the PRC plays a critical role as technical experts, assessing the technical and programmatic appropriateness of submitted proposals. The PRC’s role is to:

• Evaluate proposals against global goods criteria and provide technical feedback to authors
• Evaluate the programmatic and contextual appropriateness of a proposal in meeting health system challenges.
• Evaluate submitted proposals and assign green, amber, or red lit status.

2.0. Responsibilities

• Review all investment proposals, utilizing the global goods criteria.
• Support the dhi by voting on proposals to move forward for investment, investigate further, or decline outright.
• Support the dhi management team by providing additional technical guidance as requested in regard to green or amber lit investment proposals.
• Share knowledge and provide technical and strategic advice in areas of expertise. 3.0 Composition

The PRC is comprised of a diverse set of the foremost leaders and thinkers in digital health technology. The PRC does not have a limit on the number of Members. Seats are allocated to organizations, referred to as Member Organizations. There is no term limit. The PRC is comprised of Member Organizations and Representatives who meet the following membership criteria:

• Are recognized as experts in global health informatics, information technology, software development, and/or interoperability.
• Have expertise in regional and global digital health systems.
• Fulfill a balanced representation of the diverse group of stakeholders in digital health, including country governments, donor organizations, implementing organizations, technology vendors, and other constituencies.
• Willingness to comply with required participation as described in the governance documents.

4.0 Conflict of interest

Members will disclose organizational or personal/financial conflicts before proposal review. The Chair will determine the scope of the conflict and the necessity for recusal. It is important to note that members are not likely to be recused from the review and feedback process on a proposal, but rather just voting, as their feedback is integral to the “peer” in Peer Review Committee. This will be applied fairly but may vary by situation.

5.0 Voting

Each PRC member organization receives one vote. Representatives and Alternates should come to a consensus in order to cast one organizational. All votes are weighed equally. PATH as the ex officio chair does not have a vote. The PRC member organizations cast their votes for green-, amber-, or red-light on the proposals. The breakdown of the organizational votes is then communicated to the Governing Board.

In the case of the DH&I WG group, each organization within the group receives one vote, all of which are weighed equally. The majority vote within the DH&I WG is then cast as the DH&I WG organizational vote. In the event of a tie between green and amber, the vote will be cast as green. In the event of a tie between green and red, the vote will be cast as amber. In the event of a tie between amber and red, the vote will be cast as amber.

Current Membership

Digital Square's Peer Review Committee is comprised of the following organizations.

• African Centre for eHealth Excellence (Acfee)
• Asia eHealth Information Network (AeHIN)
• Digital Square (ex officio)
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
• Department for International Development (DFID)
• Digital Impact Alliance (DIAL)
• Health Data Collaborative (HDC) via the Digital Health & Interoperability Working Group including:
  • IntraHealth International
  • Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
  • MEASURE Evaluation
  • RTI
• International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
• Swedish Program for ICT in Developing Regions (SPIDER)
• United States Agency for International Development (USAID)