The Global Association of Applied Neuro Synergy (GAANS) is an organisation formed to enable various “human technologies” to be shared and, more importantly, applied into the lives of its members and their associates. An emphasis on total-actualisation exists as the ultimate outcome generated by GAANS members. Towards that end, we have formed an Academic Advisory Board to make recommendations that ensure the highest quality materials and delivery of materials integrated into any GAANS curriculum or developmental pathways.
The peer review provided is based on the assumption that quality is best served by standards created and applied by professionals to advance the quality of our association. In all evaluation processes, judgment, reason, and the documentation of evidence contribute to effective peer review.
The common heritage of GAANS with various social-cognitive-behavioral psychologies growing out of the Human Potential Movement suggests an amount of rigor and attention to detail that goes above and beyond just training individual skills. This advisory board exists to provide overarching guidance to the association as a whole and academic-level support to those GAANS members who pursue publication of training materials or original research.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Academic Advisory Board members are responsible for a combination of activities that might be considered “editorial” or peer review as well as the larger scope of guiding the development of GAANS as a whole. As part of that, advisory board members must reveal any conflicts of interest or bias that may impair their impartiality and then recuse themselves as appropriate.
Academic advisory board members are expected to provide written, sensory-based feedback in a timely manner on the quality of presentation, scholarly merits, and applicability of the submitted works in the appropriate contexts. Quality of presentation will be based in part on clarity, conciseness, and relevance to the proposed audience.
Feedback on scholarly merit will be provided with documented bases for the reviewer’s opinion, including any existing sources that contradict the submitted work, should be cited as source material, or are otherwise relevant.
Works submitted to the Academic Advisory Board for review must include a statement of intended audience that is as specific as possible. Broad labels such as “academic audiences” or “corporate clients” are useful for initial categorization but typically do not provide enough information to enable useful feedback. Additionally, if submitting
potential training manuals for review, include a timeline and an outline for expected delivery. E.g. “This training manual is aimed at a 3-day training for middle management within a financial services company with each section of the manual being presented in a half-day.”