About the definition of authorship, I am afraid I might not have explained myself clearly. As I see it (I might be getting it wrong), there are two ways of framing the definition:
OPTION 1
PME considers individuals who meet all of the following criteria to be authors:
1. Made a significant intellectual contribution to the theoretical development, research design and/or the analysis and interpretation of data associated with the work contained in the paper.
2. Contributed to drafting the paper and/or revising it for intellectual content.
3. Approved the final version of the paper as submitted to the conference organiser, including references.
Contributors who do not meet all of the above criteria may be included in the Acknowledgment section of the paper. Omitting an author who contributed to a paper or including a person who did not fulfil all of the above requirements is considered a breach of publishing ethics.
OPTION 2
PME considers individuals who meet the following two criteria to be authors:
1. Made a significant intellectual contribution to the theoretical development, research design and/or the analysis and interpretation of data associated with the work contained in the paper.
2. Contributed to drafting the paper and/or revising it for intellectual content.
Contributors who meet both of the above criteria are expected to approve the final version of the paper as submitted to the conference organiser, including references. Contributors who do not meet all of the above criteria may be included in the Acknowledgment section of the paper. Omitting an author who contributed to a paper or including a person who did not fulfil all of the above requirements is considered a breach of publishing ethics.
Currently, the proposal follows option 1. But, as I see it, option 2 feels more correct. If we follow option 1, undesirable situations like the following could happen: “My student X made a significant intellectual contribution to the paper and helped in drafting it. But I did not ask for their approval for submitting the paper, therefore I do not need to list them as an author but anyway I am complying with the ethics statement”.
Am I missing something?
————————————————–
Regarding the corrections point, my apologies, I got confused. My problem was that I was thinking that the same editors of the to-be-corrected Proceedings had to handle the issue (potentially years later, which is why it seemed inconvenient), but indeed it makes total sense that corrections are handled by the editors of the incoming Proceedings. Sorry about that!