Changes to publisher policies page

[StephDriver]

top box

• [x] in the first box, there are missing hyphens: peer-review process, peer-review processes. (being used as an adjective here).
• [x] group noun: change our editorial team ensures to our editorial team ensure

table of contents

• [ ] Its not clear that the first white box is a table of contents for the rest of the page, especially as this is not arranged as a standard list and the items in it are not in the sentence case being used for headings.
• [ ] In the contents list - the section on to Publication ethics and malpractice is divided into ethics and malpractice subsections (not linked), but this is not how the page content is arranged - no such subheadings exists.
• [ ] the contents lists links are not the same as the headings to which they link, e.g. Ethics policies -> Ethics policies for our journals
• [ ] there is no way to skip back to the contents list having used it to access a part of the main page text.

Policy Text

• [x] headings are not in sentence case
• [x] cross references are actually linked - e.g. More information can be found on the journal’s complaints and appeals process in the ‘Publication Ethics’ section above. has no link to that section. and likewise consulted the above sections; in particular, ‘Responsibilities of the Author(s)’.
• [x] grammar: form of malpractice that editors should be aware of when change to form of malpractice of which editors should be aware when
• [x] hyphens - review these as some are missing, e.g. open access publishing should be open-access publishing, peer review systems should be peer-review systems.
• [x] tautology: an ORCID iD - ORCID is an Open Researcher and Contributor ID.
• [ ] general styling and formal language is at odds with the rest of the site - but necessarily so - I wonder whether there could be some way to distinguish this content from other content that allows for more formal language without jarring with the rest of the site? See in particular the heading and bullet point styles. Consider a way to allow the informal/formal registers to be distinguished - perhaps with the policy text looking more like a document within a page where the informal language is used to introduce that document? And likewise on other pages with policies (e.g. privacy policy)
• [x] there is a direct mailto link to contact support at the freshdesk address. I wonder whether this should instead direct to the contact us page - and a support item be added to the options there? It would be easy to forget there was a hardcoded mailto link in this page.
• [x] we are working towards WCAG 2.2 (not 2.1 as on this page).
• [ ] food for thought - this states the OLH core values are inclusivity and openness and links through to the about us page - but inclusivity is only mentioned once on that page inside a quote - it is not an obvious value, only somewhat implied.
• [x] several places OLH is written when it should be The OLH, e.g. OLH is committed to...

[PaulaClementeVega]

• [x] No period at the end of subheadings, but this might be intentional
• [x] Under Open access to content "see our Archiving and Indexing policy". It links to OLHJ. It might be less confusing to redirect readers to the previous section "Archiving and indexing policy" instead of to the OLH journal.
• [x] Are we using capital letters in "contact" here? "Please submit complaints or appeals by email, or by visiting the journal’s ‘Contact’ page."
• [x] Is the use of italics in 'at least' correct? "Competing interests should generally be declared to cover at least the previous 5 years"

[S-Haime]

@joemull The table of contents does need reformatting - I will leave this to you, as it will need to match the wider website. The layout seems copied from OLHJ.