Subject: Re: [jats-list] JATS4R draft recommendation for Conflict of Interest statements now open From: "Alf Eaton eaton.alf@xxxxxxxxx" <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:02:16 -0000 |
Thank you Charles, and apologies for re-opening a discussion that had already concluded. Alf On 18 January 2018 at 16:43, Charles O'Connor coconnor@xxxxxxxxxxxx <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There was a discussion of this topic on the Google doc while it was open. This is the last thread I have. I don't know how or whether it was resolved (see below). > > > > Two clarifications about comments in this thread: 1) the model for fn-type is CDATA, so both "conflict" and "COI-statement" would be valid in JATS 1.1 (blue). 2) The PMC recommendation for JATS 1.1 is to use "conflict" in Blue and "COI-statement" in Green. I have no information on the reasoning behind the difference. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pmcdoc/tagging-guidelines/article/tags.html# el-fn > > > > -Charles (AKA Joebob Jones) > > > > ***************************************************************************** *************************************************************** > > > > Christina Von Raesfeld replied to a comment on Conflict of Interest Statements - Draft Recommendation.docx > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Joebob Jones > > statement > > Why "COI-statement" as the value? The JATS tag library recommends "conflict" for conflict of interest statements, and I know many publishers use "conflict". Are there also many who currently use "COI-statement"? If not, then this would create a split with much legacy XML that would otherwise already conform to this recommendation. > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Luciano Panepucci > > I agree. We have been using "conflict" as suggested in JATS[1]. > > > > I just checked the PMC tagging guidelines and to my surprise it specifies "COI-statement"[2]. I wander when was this changed or was it always like this? (couldn't find in the update history) > > > > [1] https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/tag-library/1.1/attribute/fn-type.html > > > > [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pmcdoc/tagging-guidelines/article/tags.html# el-aunotes > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Christina Von Raesfeld > > @fn-type="COI-statement" is invalid in the JATS Journal Publishing (Blue) DTD. We use @fn-type="conflict", and PMC does dictate @fn-type="conflict" for the Blue DTD: > > > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pmcdoc/tagging-guidelines/article/dobs.html# dob-coi > > > > "For a COI statement captured as <fn> in the Journal Publishing (Blue) DTD, use @fn-type="conflict". Otherwise, use the appropriate content type attribute with a value "COI-statement"." > > > > Also, we do not include the "Competing interests:" label in the footnote and instead rely on both our and PMC's software to render a "Competing Interests:" label in front of all @fn-type="conflict" footnotes. If you include the label in the fn/p, as shown in the JATS4R examples, then it will result in a double label in the PMC rendering. > > > > ***************************************************************************** ***************************************************************** > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alf Eaton eaton.alf@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:50 AM > > To: jats-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [jats-list] JATS4R draft recommendation for Conflict of Interest statements now open > > > > On 7 December 2017 at 18:24, Kelly McDougall kmcdouga@xxxxxxx <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hello JATS users, > >> > >> JATS4R working group has developed a draft recommendation for the tagging of Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interest statements. This recommendation is open for comment. Please make comments on the google doc version <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tJltI28KpqUqI5_c2RH5470RnTdb63yaMYQ6_Moh qDU/edit?usp=sharing>, which is publicly available. The deadline for adding comments is Friday, January 5th, 2018. > >> > >> > >> All the best, > >> > >> Kelly McDougall > >> > >> JATS4R Standing Committee > > > > > > If it's not too late (the doc no longer allows comments, so it may be, but I only just saw this note), I'd like to point out that the JATS documentation already includes an example of marking up "conflicts of interest" statements with `fn-type="conflict"`: > > https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/tag-library/1.1d1/n-hxx0.html > > > > This can be used in article XML as follows: > > > > <fn-group content-type="competing-interests"> > > <title>Competing Interests</title> > > <fn id="conflict-1" fn-type="conflict"> > > <p>The authors declare there are no competing interests.</p> > > </fn> > > </fn-group> > > > > e.g. https://peerj.com/articles/3000.xml > > > > Alf
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [jats-list] JATS4R draft recomm, Charles O'Connor coc | Thread | Re: [jats-list] JATS4R draft recomm, Christina Von Raesfe |
Re: [jats-list] Feedback on#00763 I, B Tommie Usdin btusd | Date | Re: [jats-list] JATS4R draft recomm, Christina Von Raesfe |
Month |