General Discussions

We have had HE since last July. We just figured or this is new, that Analyst comments identify who the analyst is to the PI. Analyst comments are not anonymous like reviewer comments.  Lately analysts have been receiving direct emails outside of Cayuse, which does not document communications. It can also put a target on our back complicating the review process. Has anyone else noticed this as a potential issue?

That is interesting, since from my understanding it is not supposed to have the actual name of the Analyst or Reviewer.  I am the only Analyst at our University and before we had Cayuse I actually had to send emails with all my comments so it was never anonymous for me.  It should definitely be anonymous for the Reviewer as they are making the decision unless it is being reviewed  by the Full Board.  You might want to submit a ticket to get confirmation from Cayuse to find out why this is happening.

Take care.

We have had HE since last July. We just figured or this is new, that Analyst comments identify who the analyst is to the PI. Analyst comments are not anonymous like reviewer comments.  Lately analysts have been receiving direct emails outside of Cayuse, which does not document communications. It can also put a target on our back complicating the review process. Has anyone else noticed this as a potential issue?

Analysts here can review determinations of human subject research and Exempt submissions. 

That is interesting, since from my understanding it is not supposed to have the actual name of the Analyst or Reviewer.  I am the only Analyst at our University and before we had Cayuse I actually had to send emails with all my comments so it was never anonymous for me.  It should definitely be anonymous for the Reviewer as they are making the decision unless it is being reviewed  by the Full Board.  You might want to submit a ticket to get confirmation from Cayuse to find out why this is happening.

Take care.

We have had HE since last July. We just figured or this is new, that Analyst comments identify who the analyst is to the PI. Analyst comments are not anonymous like reviewer comments.  Lately analysts have been receiving direct emails outside of Cayuse, which does not document communications. It can also put a target on our back complicating the review process. Has anyone else noticed this as a potential issue?

We have had HE since last July. We just figured or this is new, that Analyst comments identify who the analyst is to the PI. Analyst comments are not anonymous like reviewer comments.  Lately analysts have been receiving direct emails outside of Cayuse, which does not document communications. It can also put a target on our back complicating the review process. Has anyone else noticed this as a potential issue?

Yes -- this is an issue for us too that researchers can see the analyst's name and associate it with their comments. I have noticed that it only seems to occur early in the review process; once a project has been assigned to a reviewer and then sent back to the study team I don't believe analyst names are viewable. Oftentimes during this phase of the review, study team members will indicate "two different reviewers made two different comments..." and they don't seem to indicate that it is the analyst that is one of the reviewers. However, when the project hasn't yet been classified into a category and assigned to a review, but sent back to the study team for comments in the pre-review stage, they seem to know which analyst is providing feedback. Would love to see this be changed from reflecting analyst names to simply 'analyst' in the same way it is for reviewers as a means of blind reviews and protection. 

We have had HE since last July. We just figured or this is new, that Analyst comments identify who the analyst is to the PI. Analyst comments are not anonymous like reviewer comments.  Lately analysts have been receiving direct emails outside of Cayuse, which does not document communications. It can also put a target on our back complicating the review process. Has anyone else noticed this as a potential issue?

We haven't been able to track it that closely yet. But if analysts' names only appear at the Pre-Review stage, and disappear once a reviewer is assigned, that kind of sounds like a bug...

Yes -- this is an issue for us too that researchers can see the analyst's name and associate it with their comments. I have noticed that it only seems to occur early in the review process; once a project has been assigned to a reviewer and then sent back to the study team I don't believe analyst names are viewable. Oftentimes during this phase of the review, study team members will indicate "two different reviewers made two different comments..." and they don't seem to indicate that it is the analyst that is one of the reviewers. However, when the project hasn't yet been classified into a category and assigned to a review, but sent back to the study team for comments in the pre-review stage, they seem to know which analyst is providing feedback. Would love to see this be changed from reflecting analyst names to simply 'analyst' in the same way it is for reviewers as a means of blind reviews and protection. 

We have had HE since last July. We just figured or this is new, that Analyst comments identify who the analyst is to the PI. Analyst comments are not anonymous like reviewer comments.  Lately analysts have been receiving direct emails outside of Cayuse, which does not document communications. It can also put a target on our back complicating the review process. Has anyone else noticed this as a potential issue?