Draft policy: labelling of Institute-constructed programme… — 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 party that is assessed and also sponsors should be disclosed on its own assessment — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/001. 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.
2. The document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/002. 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.
3. There is no route to challenge a disposition — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/003. 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.
4. The search date is not on the face of the document — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/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.
5. A four-week window is too short for a respondent without institutional support — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/006. 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.
6. The policy does not say what happens to a document the Institute is asked to remove — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/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are now stated exhaustively, being a factual error that cannot be corrected in place and a legal obligation, a withdrawn document is replaced by a notice recording the fact and the ground rather than removed, and every withdrawal is…
7. The terms on which the documents may be reused are not stated — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/008. 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…
8. The secretariat answers submissions and is not itself named — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/009. 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.
9. A reader who acted on a document is not told when it is corrected — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/010. 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.
10. A party criticised in an assessment should have a right of reply — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/011. A standing correction route is now published, corrections of fact are assessed and applied at any time with the change recorded in the amendment log, and a submission of substance received outside a window is held and published in the next comment period on…
11. Funding should not be accepted from any party the Institute assesses — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/012. 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…
12. Whether external reviewers are paid is not stated — arising from DRAFT-PROGRAMME-RE/013. 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.

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.