Public comment period · §3
Draft policy on the register of members and reviewers — disposition
The disposition of every submission and the amendments that resulted.
§3Disposition and amendments
§3.1Disposition table
Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.
| Reference | Respondent | Point raised | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/001 | Professor Bartolomeu Nkosi-Lindegaard | Independence is asserted and the mechanism securing it is not described | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/002 | Dr Beatrijs Hazelrigg | Assessment committee meetings are held in private | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/003 | Dr Vasilisa Sandringham-Adu | What the site collects about a reader is not stated in terms a reader can check | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/004 | Dr Vasilisa Immelmann | Recusal should follow automatically from any declared financial interest | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/005 | Quentin Whitmarsh-Obi | The search date is not on the face of the document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/006 | Kolawole Oppenheimer-Ade | The Institute publishes no telephone number and no messaging channel | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/007 | Dr Prosper Vercingetorix | No period is stated within which a submission will be answered | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/008 | Vittoria Ylönen | Declared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate page | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/009 | Kolawole Jankowiak-Osei | The position of a contributor who withdraws consent is not stated | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/010 | Dr Georgiana Mountstephen | Whether external reviewers are paid is not stated | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/011 | Dr Evander Ashworth-Danquah | The secretariat answers submissions and is not itself named | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/012 | Dr Quentin Enthoven | A party that is assessed and also sponsors should be disclosed on its own assessment | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/013 | Wilhelmina Erlingsson | A submission the Institute declines to publish leaves no trace | Noted, no amendment |
| 13 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 7 | The submission is accepted and the draft is amended as proposed. The amendment is recorded in the amendment log of the document it changed and is traceable to the numbered submission. |
| Accepted in part | 1 | Part of the submission is accepted and part is not. The secretariat response states which part is which and on what ground the remainder was declined. |
| Noted, no amendment | 4 | The submission raises a point the Institute accepts but that does not require a change to the draft, most often because the draft already states it elsewhere. The location is given in the response. |
| Not accepted | 1 | The submission is not accepted. The secretariat response gives the reason. A submission that is not accepted remains published in full; the Institute does not remove a submission because it disagrees with it. |
§3.3Resulting amendments
- Independence is asserted and the mechanism securing it is not described — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/001. The governance document now describes the separation in operational terms: who accepts funding, who makes assessments, that the two sets do not overlap, and that assessment staff are not informed of placement decisions before publication.
- What the site collects about a reader is not stated in terms a reader can check — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/003. The statement now enumerates what is collected and what is not, and is written so that a reader can verify it from the page source, which is the only form of the statement that can be checked without trusting the Institute.
- The search date is not on the face of the document — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/005. The search date is now printed adjacent to every certainty rating and is carried in the document metadata, so that the interval between the search and the reading is visible without reference to the methods section.
- No period is stated within which a submission will be answered — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/007. Receipt is acknowledged within five working days and a substantive response is published within eight weeks of the window closing. Where that period cannot be met the reason is published in its place.
- The position of a contributor who withdraws consent is not stated — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/009. The policy now states that a contributor may withdraw from the register at any time and that the register entry is removed, while a signed submission already published remains published, because the consultation record is a record of what was said and by…
- Whether external reviewers are paid is not stated — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/010. 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.
- The secretariat answers submissions and is not itself named — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/011. Every comment period now names the secretariat members responsible for it, with their declared interests, in the consultation front matter, so that the responses can be read against the interests of the people who wrote them.
- A party that is assessed and also sponsors should be disclosed on its own assessment — arising from DRAFT-PEOPLE-REGIS/012. The disclosure now appears as a numbered section on the dossier of any assessed party that sponsors the site, as well as on the funding page.
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.
- 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.
Compound Evidence Institute · CEI-CP-021/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-people-register-policy/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026