Public comment period · §3
Draft citation policy — 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-CITATION-POL/008 | Dr Oswin Yorkstone | The position of a contributor who withdraws consent is not stated | Accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/001 | Dr Quentin Whitmarsh-Obi | Point estimates are given without an interval | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/006 | Dr Ludmila Castellanos-Reid | The document set should be published in translation | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/009 | Dr Valentin Castellanos-Reid | Anonymous submissions should be accepted where the respondent risks employment consequences | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/007 | Dr Kamila Ubertini | Whether external reviewers are paid is not stated | Accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/005 | Dr Vasilisa Immelmann | The policy does not say what happens to a document the Institute is asked to remove | Accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/004 | Dr Hortensia Larsson-Ekwueme | The materiality threshold for a declarable holding is set too high | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/002 | Dr Delphine Trelawney | The search date is not on the face of the document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-CITATION-POL/003 | Dr Ottoline Oppenheimer-Ade | Funding should not be accepted from any party the Institute assesses | Accepted in part |
| 9 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 4 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 0 | 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 | 2 | 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
- The position of a contributor who withdraws consent is not stated — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/008. 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…
- Point estimates are given without an interval — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/001. Every estimate now carries its interval where the source reported one, and where it did not, the estimate is annotated as reported without an interval rather than left to appear as a precise figure.
- Whether external reviewers are paid is not stated — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/007. 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 policy does not say what happens to a document the Institute is asked to remove — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/005. 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…
- The materiality threshold for a declarable holding is set too high — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/004. The materiality threshold is lowered and is now expressed as a proportion of the declarer's holdings as well as an absolute figure, so that a holding material to the person is declarable whether or not it is large in absolute terms.
- The search date is not on the face of the document — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/002. 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.
- Funding should not be accepted from any party the Institute assesses — arising from DRAFT-CITATION-POL/003. The policy now prohibits funding from an assessed party for any activity bearing on that party's assessment, requires that any other relationship be published on the funding page and on every page it could bear on, and records the sums involved rather than…
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-012/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-citation-policy/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026