Review Commons / Template Compatibility

[cgreene]

I submitted my first manuscript to review commons using the standard manubot template. It came back with this comment:

Corresponding author needs to be clearly indicated in the manuscript.
Corresponding author marked in the manuscript needs to match the corresponding author marked on the submission page.

We might want to add a suggested corresponding author field + indicate in the template.

[dhimmel]

Past discussions on denoting corresponding authorship:

• How to indicate "Corresponding Author," work contributions, etc? #312
• Allow additional information in metadata.yaml #129

Pulling out the comment on various formats manuscripts have used:

• https://greenelab.github.io/meta-review/v/aa78ba9cbb2d874789cbfc9462dfb9aad19f655f/
• https://greenelab.github.io/meta-review/v/22b94633509d9d9c8cf3cca92d4e41d784da1bff/
• https://greenelab.github.io/deep-review/v/1c6b9c49439d2985e249e00fd09977bbb83b20af/
• https://lelaboratoire.github.io/rethink-prs-ms/v/9eeea5b70fa3bf20c3f11778bd72c79034163674/

I'm +1 to a standard YAML field to denote corresponding authors and a front-matter template displays corresponding authors if set.