| Issue Number | 123 |
|---|---|
| Summary | [Literature] Add conflict of interest to list of exclusion reasons |
| Created | 2013-12-05 11:04:51 |
| Issue Type | Improvement |
| Submitted By | Juthe, Robin (NIH/NCI) [E] |
| Assigned To | Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C] |
| Status | Closed |
| Resolved | 2013-12-12 11:24:33 |
| Resolution | Fixed |
| Path | /home/bkline/backups/jira/oceebms/issue.115731 |
Please add the following item to the list of exclusion reasons on the article review page:
I am unable to suggest changes due to a conflict of interest.
Please place it right above "Other".
We will likely be able to do this outside the release cycle. I've done it on DEV.
UPDATE ebms_review_rejection_value
SET value_pos = 16
WHERE value_id = 15;
INSERT INTO ebms_review_rejection_value (value_name, value_pos)
VALUES ('I am unable to suggest changes due to a conflict of interest', 15);
R12232 trunk/ebms/sql/ebms.sql
Promoted to QA.
Please revise the wording to "Conflict of interest (e.g., article author, competing financial, commercial, or professional interests)"
In a future release, we may want to move this to the set of dispositions (if this is feasible). Then, our Board members wouldn't have to select "warrants no changes" before they can say that they have a conflict.
Changed on DEV and QA.
In a future release, we may want to move this to the set of dispositions (if this is feasible). Then, our Board members wouldn't have to select "warrants no changes" before they can say that they have a conflict.
That would probably have been a more appropriate way to implement this - not just from a convenience standpoint, but more important, it's not true that they're claiming the article warrants no changes; they're just indicating that they're prevented from saying one way or another whether it warrants changes.
This text is truncated on DEV. I'm only seeing the following:
"Conflict of interest (e.g., article author, competing financial, commercial, or "
Fixed.
Verified on QA.
Verified on prod.
Elapsed: 0:00:00.000735