A growing number of journal articles are funded or co-funded. This blog covers funding notes in non-OA-articles and OA articles on a basis of “author pays” (the author is not eligible to publish in OA under an institutional agreement with Brill. For the latter category of OA, see )
Usually, the funding institution (could be the EU, for instance) must be credited. Usual instructions for such acknowledgements apply. An acknowledgement of some substance best is included at the end of the article, in a separate paragraph, under a level 1 heading (“Acknowledgements”). (Very) brief funding notes can be attached to an allowed element at the beginning of the article, as instructed in and by Central Desk Editing Journals earlier, the first level 1 heading in the article being most ideal for this purpose. Never even attach notes to typical metadata elements, except author name.
Third party credits and other special notes missing in the copy
With articles in EM, it could be that funding or any other notes that shall be typeset are not included in the copy but only in the EM metadata instead. Unfortunately there really isn't a way to ensure that all of this kind of information is included in the submission files themselves. For instance, in a recent case JRD-1034R1, we checked all relevant article content in EM and saw the funding information that the authors entered when they submitted the paper. They did indeed enter it in EM, without also including it in the manuscript file. However, any funding information entered in EM will also be included in the transmittal form, as it was for this manuscript:
So it is important for the PE to check not only the transmitted files carefully but also the transmittal form itself (including the Production Notes field, but also other sections of the form as well).
No easy fix - checking by parties involved is needed
It goes without saying that such PNs are to reach the PE. With EM sites properly used by the Editors, the PNs are included in an email message to PE confirming the article is accepted for publication. In case EM isn’t used properly or perfectly, such an email may not be issued to the PE.
It is also, of course, fair to put some of the onus on the authors (CC editors) themselves to check for this kind of missing information at proof review. Ideally it will have been detected and added much earlier on in the process, i.e., by the editors during review, during copyediting, or by the PE prior to proof compilation, but certainly the authors should be checking for this, too, when they receive proofs for review.
All this to say there is no easy fix from an EM perspective. EM can be configured to require that certain information be entered in the system at different stages, but it cannot require or ensure that any particular pieces of information have been included in the files themselves, where they ultimately need to be.
Thanks to Phil Jackson of EM Support who contributed greatly to the above content.
