Draft funding and sponsorship policy — disposition

§3Disposition and amendments

§3.1Disposition table

Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.

§3.2Summary by disposition

Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.

§3.3Resulting amendments

1. A reader who acted on a document is not told when it is corrected — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/001. A corrected passage now carries an inline notice for twelve months from the date of correction, naming the log entry, in addition to the entry itself.
2. There is no route to challenge a disposition — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/002. A disposition may now be referred for review to a member of the assessment committee who did not author the response, once per submission, with the referral and its outcome published alongside the original disposition whether or not it changes.
3. The terms on which the documents may be reused are not stated — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/003. The reuse terms are now stated explicitly on the legal page and in the document footer, permitting quotation and reproduction with attribution and the document version, and requiring that any reproduction carry the certainty rating that accompanied the quoted…
4. References should carry a persistent identifier for every cited source — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/005. Every reference without a persistent identifier now carries an explicit statement that the identifier is not held by the Institute, so that its absence is a recorded fact rather than an apparent oversight.
5. No term limit applies to membership of the assessment committee — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/006. Members are appointed for a four-year term renewable once. Appointment and expiry dates are published in the register of members.
6. A four-week window is too short for a respondent without institutional support — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/007. The minimum window is now six weeks for a document of general application and four for a document-specific draft. A respondent who asks for more time before a window closes is given it, and that is now stated in the policy.
7. Whether external reviewers are paid is not stated — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/008. The policy now states whether external review is remunerated, records any payment made in respect of a document in that document's front matter, and treats a payment received from the Institute as a declarable interest in the same way as any other.
8. The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/009. A single term is now used throughout for each defined concept, and the glossary entry is linked at first use within each section rather than once per document.
9. The policy does not say what happens to a document the Institute is asked to remove — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/010. The grounds for withdrawal are now stated exhaustively, being a factual error that cannot be corrected in place and a legal obligation, a withdrawn document is replaced by a notice recording the fact and the ground rather than removed, and every withdrawal is…

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

1. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO/IEC Standard 2017;3rd edition. identifier not held by the Institute

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.