The types/categories of articles accepted for review are peer-reviewed scholarly literature, scientific research organization reports, government agency reports, reports from advocacy groups, news media articles and primarily anecdotal work. All will be considered and each will receive one of the rating scale scores of 1-6 or be placed in the Multiple Rating category.

The scores indicate the relative analytical weight that will be attributed to particular articles or reports considered by the GMIAC. The categories are based on research design, measurement, analysis, statistical methods and conclusions. The underpinning assumption initiating this hierarchy is that not all sources of information are equal in reliability, validity, quality, and thus, usefulness to the principal goal of the GMIAC—exploring the potential outcomes associated with medical marijuana legalization in Wyoming.


Defensible conclusions are defined as conclusions which are logical, reasonable, and supportable by the data included within the report.
Unbiased work is defined as a study, report, article or work that is conducted without a predetermined perspective or conclusion.

By its very nature advocacy work is considered biased since it attempts to present a case for a specific perspective or conclusion. Biased work often ignores or minimizes contradictory data and/or ignores or minimizes alternative explanations.

Anecdotal work will always receive the lowest rating since it is not based on systematic data collection and analysis.

Rating Scale:

1 = Unbiased work from a study or report without methodological and analytic flaws, and presents defensible conclusions
2 = Unbiased work from a study or report with only 1 or 2 minor methodological and/or analytic flaws, but still presents defensible conclusions
3 = Biased work from a study or report without major methodological and/or analytic flaws, and that does not rely on anecdotal information in its conclusions
4 = Unbiased work from any context with 3 or more minor flaws, and/or 1 or more major flaws
5 = Unbiased or biased work from any source that does not present defensible conclusions
6 = All solely anecdotal work

Multiple rating = Wide-ranging large reports from unbiased or biased sources that contain a combination of credible data competently analyzed, credible data wrongly interpreted, anecdote, reasonable and/or unreasonable assumptions. Work in the multiple rating category will have sections with some analytical value (weight) in the compilation of the literature review, and other sections that will have little or no value. No overall single score will be assigned, but the research subcommittee will include portions/sections according to their merit in the literature review report resulting from this project.