Reviewers Clause Samples

Reviewers. Noora Yli-Huumo ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Joonas ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ APPENDIX 1 Salary Settlement

Reviewers. As Reviewer, you are responsible for: a) undertaking the appropriate SRDS training prior to holding any review meetings. b) ensuring you are fully briefed on departmental and relevant University objectives and priorities so that any discussions with reviewees are set in that context. c) making arrangements for the review meeting (giving at least two weeks notice). You should take care to ensure that the location for the meeting is appropriate and free from interruptions. You should allow at least one hour for the meeting. d) considering the reviewee’s self-review (which should be submitted to you at least one week prior to the meeting). e) ensuring the meeting is open, supportive and constructive, and that all issues raised by the reviewee prior to and during the meeting are discussed. You should ensure that any individual objectives agreed with the reviewee, and that any identified development needs, are in line with departmental priorities and objectives. When conducting the meeting you should also seek to be open-minded, encouraging and positive; ask open-ended questions in order to allow the reviewee to express themselves fully; recognise achievements and offer feedback on the reviewee’s contribution; seek to address concerns or problems in a constructive way. f) ensuring that all the forms are completed, signed and submitted to the Head of Department, within two weeks of the meeting. g) ensuring feedback is provided to the reviewee as appropriate, i.e. on decisions relating to development needs (see Section C.2) and/or on recommendations from the Departmental Review Panel (see Section 5). h) ensuring that you follow up any agreed action points within the agreed timescale; if this cannot be done, you should inform the reviewee and/or the Head of Department as appropriate.

Reviewers. Reviewers charged with determining acceptance or rejection of Services or Deliverables on behalf of T-Mobile may be specified in the Order or Change Orders. Schedule F Appendix F-2 F-2-2 Governance Schedule Acceptance Procedures [* * *] The confidential content of this Exhibit 10.1 has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions. Schedule F Appendix F-3 F-3-1 Governance Schedule Change Order Form [* * *] The confidential content of this Exhibit 10.1 has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions. CR REFERENCE #: ______________ CR PRIORITY: ________________ (high, medium, low) REQUESTING PARTY: __________ (T-Mobile or Provider) TITLE: __________________________ (Include any changes to procedures, standards, policies, etc., or Baseline Assumption Change) Change Order Form 1 [* * *] The confidential content of this Exhibit 10.1 has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions. (Include any impact on current Service Levels, Charges) (Include any timing constraints, milestones, etc.) Change Order Form 2 [* * *] The confidential content of this Exhibit 10.1 has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions. (Include Charges, estimated reimbursable Expenses (if any) and related retained costs as well as benefits)

Reviewers. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, June 2015; ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, CO ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL XI. References ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. ▇. 2018. Evaluate effects of flow spikes to disrupt reproduction of smallmouth bass in the Green River downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam. Final report to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. Denver, Colorado. Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 214. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33277.61926 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇.▇. and ▇.▇. ▇▇▇▇▇. 2000. Response of the Green River fish community to construction and re- regulation of Flaming Forge Dam, 1962–1996. Final Report of Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory to Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colorado ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. ▇., and ▇. ▇. ▇▇▇▇. 2016. River regulation affects reproduction, early growth, and suppression strategies for invasive smallmouth bass in the upper Colorado River basin. Final report to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Project FR-115, Denver, CO. Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 187. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29635.20009

Reviewers. This document has been reviewed by the following: ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Information Governance Consultant, NHS Arden and GEM CSU ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Head of Information Governance Service, NHS Arden and GEM CSU ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Head of Data, Development and Integration, NHS Arden and GEM CSU ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Director of Information and It Services, NHS Arden and GEM CSU ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Strategy and Planning Officer, NHS Leicester City CCG LLR IM&T Project Board on 12/03/2015 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇’▇▇▇▇▇, Caldicott Guardian, NHS East Leicestershire and Rutland, CCG ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Caldicott Guardian, NHS West Leicestershire CCG ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Caldicott Guardian, NHS Leicester City CCG Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Local Medical Committee on 10/06/2015 1Personal Confidential Data (PCD) - As per Caldicott 2, ‘Personal’ includes the Data Protection Act definition of personal data, plus data relating to the deceased. ‘Confidential’ includes both information ‘given in confidence’ and ‘that which is owed a duty of confidence’ and is adapted to include ‘sensitive’ as defined in the Data Protection Act.

Reviewers. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Utah Water Resources; ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, CWCB; ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Environmental Representative, Recovery Implementation Committee; ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Water Users Representative; ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, The Nature Conservancy; ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Recovery Program

Reviewers. 8.1. This clause 8 applies where Reviewer Administration Services are included in the list at Page 1 of this Agreement. 8.2. Where the Supplier is requested to provide Reviewer Administration Services, the Supplier will provide ACC with a list of individuals who have indicated to the Supplier their interest in acting as Reviewers. ACC will provide a Letter of Engagement to each Reviewer acceptable to it. The Letter of Engagement will set out that ACC engages the Reviewer to undertake Review Services in accordance with Part 5 of the AC Act until the Reviewer indicates otherwise to the Supplier (the Supplier will then notify the same to ACC). 8.3. The Supplier shall ensure that Reviewer Services are provided only by the Reviewers who have received and agreed to a current Letter of Engagement with ACC. 8.4. The Supplier may, at any time during the Term, notify ACC of the names of additional individuals who have indicated to the Supplier their interest in providing Review Services. ACC will arrange a Letter of Engagement to be provided to each of the additional individuals.

Reviewers. Users who are reviewers have full access to Rakuna Recruit, and read-only permission to the Rakuna Dashboard, except that such reviewers may comment on candidate profiles (“Reviewers”).

Reviewers. To expedite the review process, authors must recommend four potential reviewers, with a PhD degree, and experts in the topic, who are not members of their institution(s) and have published at least one article in the last two years. Two of the proposed reviewers must be from a different country from the principal author´s country.