Dear Anika and PPG, thanks for the work put into this! I support working towards the indexing of PME proceedings, and Scopus is a good first step.
About the proposed Statement, I have a few comments that may be of help:
1. Definition of Authorship: is it the case that (1), (2), and (3) define together authorship? It seems to me that the definition may be done on the basis of (1) and (2) only, and (3) becomes a requirement once authors have been defined.
2. Would it be appropriate to state explicitly that conference papers are also considered as previous publications regarding issues like proper citation and plagiarism? About this, it might be important to take a position on the case of (conference or journal) papers in languages other than English.
3. I understand that logistics need not be part of the Statement, but I wonder how will plagiarism checks be incorporated into the PME conference review process. There are difficult questions to address such as how much non-original text will trigger a paper rejection? Will a threshold % be defined? (if so, how? by whom? (the BoT? the LOC?))
4. Regarding Corrections et al., are the conference proceedings editors (part of each conference’s LOC) the best people to handle this? I am unaware if, as of today, PME conference proceedings editors commit to this kind of labor. Maybe such commitment needs to be made explicit for future conferences, or Corrections et al. could be handled by a permanent role in the PME organization (e.g. an appointed member of the VPPG, or a PME member invited by the BoT specifically for this task (similarly to what happens with the presubmission support coordinator)).