Public comment period · §3
Draft funding and sponsorship 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-FUNDING-POLI/008 | Dr Matthias Whitmarsh-Obi | The terms on which the documents may be reused are not stated | Accepted |
| DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/006 | Dr Kamila Glendinning-Uche | Declared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate page | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/010 | Dr Fenella Lavrentiev | The same concept is given three different names in one document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/009 | Ludmila Brackenridge | A sortable table implies a comparison the underlying data do not support | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/007 | Dr Wilhelmina Wintringham | The document should state what a reader ought to do | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/002 | Dr Liesbeth Delacroix-Njoku | A party criticised in an assessment should have a right of reply | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/001 | Dr Henrike Jastrzębska | The secretariat answers submissions and is not itself named | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/003 | Dr Liesbeth Zaleski-Mbeki | Recusal should follow automatically from any declared financial interest | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/004 | Dr Eamon Immelmann | The document is unreadable without specialist training | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/005 | Zdenka Ximenes industry | The document should not describe uses outside the approved indication | Not accepted |
| 10 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 2 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 3 | 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 terms on which the documents may be reused are not stated — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/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…
- The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/010. 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.
- A party criticised in an assessment should have a right of reply — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/002. 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…
- The secretariat answers submissions and is not itself named — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/001. 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.
- The document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-FUNDING-POLI/004. 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.
- 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-011/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-funding-policy/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026