Draft corrections and versioning 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. What the site collects about a reader is not stated in terms a reader can check — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/016. 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.
2. Point estimates are given without an interval — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/003. 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.
3. The search date is not on the face of the document — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/004. 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.
4. Whether external reviewers are paid is not stated — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/005. 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.
5. The terms on which the documents may be reused are not stated — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/018. 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…
6. The position of a contributor who withdraws consent is not stated — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/006. 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…
7. References should carry a persistent identifier for every cited source — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/019. 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.
8. Disagreement within the assessment committee is not visible — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/010. A ratification record is now published with every document stating whether the assessment was unanimous, and a member may record a dissenting statement which is published with the document rather than in minutes.
9. The threshold between a correction and a new version is drawn too high — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/013. The versioning threshold is now stated by category: a change to a certainty rating, an effect estimate or a conclusion produces a new version at a new address, and every other change is a logged correction that states the previous wording.
10. Where a document is generated rather than authored, the reader should be told — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/009. Every generated record now carries a notice stating that its prose frame is templated and that its included studies, summary of findings and certainty rating are computed from the underlying records, so that the reader can see which parts were authored and…
11. The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/012. 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.
12. Funding should not be accepted from any party the Institute assesses — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/001. 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…
13. Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/015. A standing formulation has been adopted and is applied wherever an evidence gap is recorded, distinguishing an outcome assessed and not demonstrated from an outcome not assessed. The formulation is identical at every occurrence so that it can be recognised at…
14. The materiality threshold for a declarable holding is set too high — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/002. 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.
15. The policy does not say what happens to a document the Institute is asked to remove — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/007. 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…
16. The document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-CORRECTIONS-/014. Every document now opens with a plain-language summary of not more than 150 words, placed above the technical abstract and carrying the same certainty language, so that the two cannot diverge.

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.