You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
author affiliations based in France. A great many of these include CNRS or INSERM codes - see, for example,
Physiologie et Médecine Expérimentale du cœur et des Muscles
INSERM U1046, CNRS UMR 9214, University of Montpellier
Montpellier
France
At present, we're cramming these into the institution or department tags (we have used both rather at random since eLife started publishing four years ago) but we're not sure what would be the most logical place to include them. The U and UMR codes indicate the specific unit to which the affiliation refers, which would seem to place them as department information but CNRS and INSERM both surely belong on an institution level rather than in department fields.
We thought this was probably an issue that JATS4R should to consider, as it might highlight a need to accommodate codes associated with affiliations and to adequately capture affiliations that do not quite fit the Department/Institution/City (and/or State)/Country breakdown.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
author affiliations based in France. A great many of these include CNRS or INSERM codes - see, for example,
Physiologie et Médecine Expérimentale du cœur et des Muscles
INSERM U1046, CNRS UMR 9214, University of Montpellier
Montpellier
France
At present, we're cramming these into the institution or department tags (we have used both rather at random since eLife started publishing four years ago) but we're not sure what would be the most logical place to include them. The U and UMR codes indicate the specific unit to which the affiliation refers, which would seem to place them as department information but CNRS and INSERM both surely belong on an institution level rather than in department fields.
We thought this was probably an issue that JATS4R should to consider, as it might highlight a need to accommodate codes associated with affiliations and to adequately capture affiliations that do not quite fit the Department/Institution/City (and/or State)/Country breakdown.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: