Closed mrshirts closed 6 years ago
Yes, looks good. I guess you don't need my review now that it's merged
As discussed on the call: --for editorial board appointment terms (II.3.ii), change "one month" to "three months" --Add a bullet that the recording secretary will keep track of all appointment start and projected end dates I'll make a pull request to tidy those items up.
I still think that the COI rules are too stringent. I think that it will make getting reviewers and assigning editors unnecessarily difficult. I suggest removing the COI due to serving at the same institution, and reducing the waiting period from 48 to 36 months. While I understand that it is convenient to use the NSF standards here, there is much more concern when money is involved (and potentially coming to the same university) than one publication.
I think the above comment belongs on #86 .
And I tend to agree that it's silly to restrict people who are at the same institution or might be, unless there is some reason they would have a conflict. Basically we just want to be making sure people tell us if there's any reason they might not, or might be perceived as not, giving a fair review so we can decide.
A few proposed changes for the tutorial description.