TB participated in the design of the study, drafting of the manuscript, and interpretation of the results; shared responsibility for data acquisition; and helped to perform data analysis.
All interpretation of data is the responsibility of the authors.
However, decisions regarding final analysis and interpretation of findings were the responsibility of the first author, SDS.
The analysis, presentation and interpretation of the results were solely the responsibility of the authors.
KK made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, provided data analysis and interpretation of the results and takes responsibility for the accuracy of the data analysis.
It follows that the interpretation of responsibility as care depicts the researcher, to use Gadamer's words, "directly confronted with what he sees" instead of "standing over against a situation that he merely observes" (Gadamer 2004, p. 324).
Unfortunately, the U.S. interpretation of command responsibility refuses to acknowledge this principle, creating an atmosphere that is so permissive of war crimes that they keep happening again and again.
LS and ALS took part in the conception and design of the study, acquisition of the data, data cleaning and statistical analysis, interpretation of the analysis and took primary responsibility for writing the manuscript.
In general, the reference to inner goods potentially opens up to an interpretation of responsibility that is a non outcome-based conception of responsibility, namely, responsibility as care, which has been put forward by several authors in the debate around RRI (Grinbaum and Groves 2013; Stilgoe et al. 2013).
Without a Distribution Centre, Distribution has become the responsibility of many, interpretation of the MOE's policies are varied, and directives are being ignored or misunderstood.
