Create Name change policy page

[JGilbert-eLife]

• [x] Create page
• [x] Add description of what is being covered
• [x] Add description of checks required on this content, compiled from current protocol documents
• [x] Becky approved page
• [x] Melissa approved page
• [x] Fred approved page
• [x] James approved page
• [x] Naushin approved page
• [ ] Share page with Exeter and invite feedback

Definition of done

• [x] Page revised after team comments
• [x] Team reviewed and approved page?
• [ ] Assign Fred to update the Schematron

[JGilbert-eLife]

First draft is up here - https://app.gitbook.com/@elifesciences/s/productionhowto/pages-in-progress/name-change-requests

Does that all make sense so far? There's more stuff to come, such as updating blogposts and what happens with confirming the changes have been made, but any comments welcome!

Thanks!

[fred-atherden]

Is it worth making it really explicit that when creating a zip, the items (and not the folder) needs to be be compressed - this is a relatively common mistake.

[fred-atherden]

~So we are definitely updating the PDF of every version, not just the latest version? (the latter would remove the need for the actions described in 'Updating old versions in the archive').~

~And this is also the case if a reviewer, BRE or SE had a name change (possibly hundreds of versions needing manual correction for one name change)?~

[Edit: Stuart has clarified the reasoning behind this for me - so please ignore]

[fred-atherden]

Is it worth detailing how to change a name on PubMed? Or would that be best placed on another page?

[fred-atherden]

That's it from me - thanks for all your efforts here.

[naushinthomson]

eLife aims to allow authors, reviewers and editors to update their names with a minimum of hassle.

Should this be:

'eLife aims to allow authors, reviewers and editors to update their names with minimum hassle.'?

[naushinthomson]

To silently correct these, the first step is to download all package prior to the current (most recent) version.

I think this should be

To silently correct these, the first step is to download all packages prior to the current (most recent) version.

[naushinthomson]

I think all good from me other than that! Thanks!

[Melissa37]

Any related content such as Insights, Corrections or co-submissions

What exactly does this involve? If we're talking about updating the reference list in co-submissions and Insights I would vote this is a step too far. No other reference lists in the literature are going to be changed, as long as any future citations do get updated because we update the article and data sent to eg Crossref I'd say this should be enough.

I agree we should update correction metadata if there is a correction on an article this person is an author on

[Melissa37]

Article metadata: author list or peer review details author contributions competing interests funding table (should correct automatically) funding statement data statement

Again - is this not a reference? If the original reference on the database where this dataset is stored has not changed then we're going against what is an original piece of metadata. If it has been changed, this is still a reference and I vote should not be changed.

[Melissa37]

n cases where the individual's pronouns have changed in addition to their name, the following sections should be checked and updated if necessary: competing interests funding statement acknowledgments

I agree - but can we have a policy going forward that we stop using s/he and use they instead for everyone?

[Melissa37]

For Insight articles and co-submissions, the following will also need to be corrected where applicable: key info box details for the related article (in Insights) mentions of the first author(s) in the text (if applicable) entry for related article in the reference list

I personally think this is a step too far for this policy.

[JGilbert-eLife]

n cases where the individual's pronouns have changed in addition to their name, the following sections should be checked and updated if necessary: competing interests funding statement acknowledgments

I agree - but can we have a policy going forward that we stop using s/he and use they instead for everyone?

Just to jump on this - I think most of the time we do because our stuff (in insights etc) refers to groups. However, we can't just 'they' universally for more or less the same reason why you don't misgender someone. If there's a preferred pronoun, you should use that. 'They' is no more universal than the others, and I don't think it would make sense in the context of contributions or competing interests, which sometimes refer to one of the other authors instead/as well.

[bcollins14]

I think everyone has covered everything. Thanks James :)

[fred-atherden]

Following an update to change an author, editor or reviewer's name, an annotation should be added to the latest version of the article to indicate that such a change has taken place.

This article has been updated in response to a name-change request.

I know it's implicit, but can we make it explicit that this is the annotation that should be used, and not some variant of it.

Or perhaps even add something to make it clear that author who's name has been changed should not be mentioned in the annotation (to avoid the distress that mistake could cause).

[JGilbert-eLife]

Article metadata: author list or peer review details author contributions competing interests funding table (should correct automatically) funding statement data statement

Again - is this not a reference? If the original reference on the database where this dataset is stored has not changed then we're going against what is an original piece of metadata. If it has been changed, this is still a reference and I vote should not be changed.

This isn't meant to refer to the datasets but the actual data availability statement, where the author(s) may be mentioned e.g. contact X to request access to the data.