Governance and Decision-Making

How the Commons is directed, authorized, and held accountable

Governance and Decision-Making explains how authority is assigned, how decisions are made, who may approve activity, how responsibilities are delegated, how significant risks are managed, and how decisions are recorded, reviewed, challenged, varied, suspended, or closed.

The Commons is intended to support rigorous, ethical, accessible, durable, and public-interest knowledge activity.

To operate responsibly, it requires more than good intentions.

It requires clear authority, defined roles, proportionate processes, independent judgment, appropriate records, transparent standards, meaningful participation, and effective safeguards.

Governance does not mean that every decision requires a lengthy or complex process.

The Commons should use decision-making arrangements that are proportionate to the scale, purpose, sensitivity, risk, resources, duration, and possible impact of the matter concerned.

A simple public event, low-risk volunteer contribution, open resource, or routine account enquiry may require a simple operational decision.

A formal Partnership, restricted Working Space, significant funding arrangement, research project, Journal decision, controlled-data request, safeguarding concern, major publication, significant expenditure, or serious complaint may require more detailed assessment, specialist input, independent review, formal approval, and recorded oversight.

Purpose of Governance and Decision-Making

Governance and Decision-Making exists to ensure that the Commons:

• Remains faithful to its purpose, Principles, and Values
• Uses resources responsibly
• Protects public trust
• Maintains appropriate strategic direction
• Makes decisions through clear and authorized routes
• Protects research integrity and editorial independence
• Supports fair, accessible, respectful, and meaningful participation
• Protects the welfare, dignity, safety, privacy, rights, and interests of participants and communities
• Manages conflicts of interest
• Maintains appropriate financial, operational, research, editorial, data, safeguarding, Partnership, and support arrangements
• Responds fairly to concerns, complaints, incidents, review requests, and appeals
• Preserves appropriate records of significant decisions and activity
• Learns from feedback, mistakes, review, evaluation, changing circumstances, and emerging risks
• Ensures that no individual, institution, funder, sponsor, partner, provider, Member, contributor, or other party exercises authority beyond that formally granted to them

Governance should support responsible action.

It should not create unnecessary delay, bureaucracy, exclusion, or confusion.

Governance Principles

The Commons should make decisions according to the following principles.

Purpose

Every significant decision should be connected to the purpose of the Commons.

The Commons should not undertake activity that is inconsistent with its Principles and Values merely because an opportunity, funder, partner, contributor, institution, or resource is available.

Integrity

The Commons should act honestly, responsibly, consistently, and in good faith.

It should protect the quality of knowledge, the fairness of processes, the credibility of evidence, the independence of research and publication, and the trust of participants and the public.

Independence

The Commons should protect its ability to make responsible decisions free from improper political, commercial, financial, institutional, personal, professional, editorial, research, or other influence.

No person or organization should use Membership, funding, sponsorship, institutional standing, Partnership, access, personal relationships, professional status, data, resources, or other influence to obtain improper advantage.

Fairness

Decisions should be made fairly, consistently, proportionately, and without unjustified discrimination.

People should understand relevant access routes, eligibility criteria, decision processes, rights, responsibilities, review routes, and possible outcomes.

Transparency

The Commons should communicate its structures, policies, significant decisions, material relationships, funding, support, limitations, and review routes appropriately.

Transparency should be balanced with privacy, confidentiality, safeguarding, data protection, research integrity, editorial independence, legal obligations, cultural rights, security, and the rights of others.

Inclusion and participation

The Commons should seek to reduce unnecessary barriers to participation.

It should consider accessibility, disability, language, geography, time zones, digital access, financial barriers, culture, professional status, community needs, caring responsibilities, lived experience, and other relevant factors.

Where an activity affects a community, population, place, identity, cultural context, lived experience, or group of people, the Commons should consider meaningful participation by relevant people.

Accountability

People and bodies with responsibility for Commons decisions should understand the scope and limits of their authority.

They should maintain appropriate records, disclose and manage conflicts of interest, provide explanations where appropriate, and be subject to proportionate review.

Proportionality

The level of assessment, approval, documentation, specialist input, review, and oversight should be proportionate to the significance, duration, value, sensitivity, risk, and impact of the decision.

Respect and dignity

The Commons should treat people with dignity and respect.

Governance processes should not permit harassment, discrimination, intimidation, coercion, exploitation, collective blame, identity-based hostility, or other conduct inconsistent with the Commons’ Principles and Values.

Sustainability

The Commons should consider whether a proposed decision, commitment, activity, Partnership, funding arrangement, project, system, service, or obligation can be sustained, reviewed, concluded, and managed responsibly over time.

Governance Structure

The Commons should maintain a clear Governance Structure and Terms of Reference.

The exact legal form, office holders, committees, titles, and structures may change over time. The underlying responsibilities should remain clear.

Commons Governance Authority

The Commons Governance Authority is the person, body, board, committee, officer, or combination of authorized bodies with ultimate responsibility for the strategic direction, integrity, accountability, sustainability, and public-interest purpose of the Commons.

The Commons Governance Authority should:

• Protect the purpose, Principles, and Values of the Commons
• Approve or oversee significant strategy, policies, structures, and standards
• Ensure that appropriate authority, delegation, accountability, and review arrangements exist
• Oversee material financial, legal, ethical, safeguarding, privacy, data, research, editorial, Partnership, reputational, and operational risks
• Protect independence, integrity, public trust, and responsible use of resources
• Ensure that material concerns, complaints, incidents, conflicts of interest, and risks can be escalated appropriately
• Ensure that appropriate review, appeal, accountability, and record-management arrangements exist
• Appoint, authorize, delegate to, review, or remove responsible role holders where appropriate
• Receive proportionate reports on significant activity, risks, decisions, performance, learning, and material matters
• Ensure that the Commons has an appropriate policy, procedure, agreement, and document-control framework

Commons Administration

The Commons Administration is responsible for the practical administration, coordination, communication, records, systems, implementation, support, and day-to-day operation of the Commons.

The Commons Administration may:

• Maintain pages, forms, records, systems, communications, listings, and operational processes
• Receive enquiries, applications, submissions, requests, support enquiries, concerns, and complaints
• Route matters to the appropriate person, process, Community Group, Working Space, reviewer, editor, project lead, safeguarding contact, data contact, financial authority, or governance authority
• Administer Membership, events, Groups, Working Spaces, Calls, research, publication, Repository, Partnerships, funding, and other Commons activity
• Maintain appropriate administrative records
• Coordinate approvals and reviews
• Provide information and guidance
• Monitor deadlines, conditions, permissions, access, and implementation
• Escalate material concerns and risks
• Maintain appropriate policy, procedure, agreement, template, and operational-document registers
• Support evaluation, review, learning, and improvement
• Make routine operational decisions within its delegated authority

Commons Administration should not make commitments, authorize expenditure, enter contracts, appoint senior role holders, disclose protected information, approve high-risk activity, or bind the Commons legally unless it holds explicit delegated authority to do so.

Designated Authorities

The Commons should designate appropriate authorities for areas that require particular responsibility, competence, independence, or oversight.

Designated Authorities may include:

• Membership Authority
• Community and Working Space Authority
• Events and Learning Authority
• Research Authority
• Editorial Authority
• Repository and Preservation Authority
• Partnership and External Collaboration Authority
• Funding, Sponsorship, and Support Authority
• Financial Authority
• Safeguarding Authority
• Privacy, Data, Consent, and Confidentiality Authority
• Complaints, Review, and Appeal Authority
• Accessibility and Inclusion Authority
• Technical and Information-Security Authority
• Other necessary governance, professional, operational, or specialist authorities

One person or body may hold more than one authority where this is appropriate, properly documented, and consistent with sound governance.

The Commons should avoid concentrating incompatible responsibilities in one person or body where this could create a material conflict of interest, undermine independence, weaken safeguards, or prevent fair review.

Community Groups and Working Spaces

Community Groups and Working Spaces may have coordinators, moderators, facilitators, leads, editors, advisers, project contacts, or other role holders.

These roles may support participation, discussion, access, moderation, scheduling, resource sharing, event development, proposal development, research activity, project coordination, and other approved work.

A Community Group or Working Space role holder should not assume authority beyond that explicitly granted to them.

They should not represent the Commons, make financial commitments, approve restricted access, determine research findings, control Journal editorial decisions, enter Partnerships, disclose protected information, or make governance decisions unless formally authorized.

Research, Editorial, and Repository Roles

Research roles may include research leads, project leads, providers, investigators, advisers, reviewers, data stewards, community contributors, or other approved participants.

Editorial roles may include editors, associate editors, reviewers, editorial advisers, authors, contributors, and publication administrators.

Repository roles may include depositors, metadata contributors, curators, preservation advisers, librarians, archivists, data stewards, access reviewers, and Repository administrators.

Research, editorial, and Repository roles should have clear conditions, authority limits, independence safeguards, conflict-of-interest arrangements, privacy and confidentiality requirements, attribution arrangements, and review processes.

External Parties

Partners, funders, sponsors, donors, providers, institutions, and other external contributors may support or participate in Commons activity.

They should not gain authority over governance, research conclusions, editorial decisions, peer review, Community Group direction, Working Space access, provider selection, restricted information, or public representation unless this has been expressly authorized through an appropriate process or agreement.

The Commons should manage such relationships through the Partnerships and External Collaboration and Funding, Sponsorship, and Support frameworks.

Decision Types

The Commons should distinguish between different types of decision.

Strategic decisions

Strategic decisions relate to the purpose, direction, priorities, long-term sustainability, development, major structures, major policies, significant risks, and future of the Commons.

Strategic decisions should normally be made or overseen by the Commons Governance Authority.

Operational decisions

Operational decisions relate to the day-to-day administration and implementation of approved Commons activity.

These may include routine communications, page administration, event administration, account support, record keeping, operational scheduling, routine access management, and other decisions within delegated authority.

Operational decisions may normally be made by Commons Administration where they do not create material commitments, risks, or consequences.

Membership decisions

Membership decisions may include eligibility, approval, conditions, access, renewal, suspension, termination, authorized representatives, fee support, and review.

Membership decisions should be made in accordance with the Membership framework and applicable delegated authority.

Community Group and Working Space decisions

Community and Working Space decisions may include creation, access, participation, role appointment, moderation, activity approval, restricted discussion, confidentiality, project involvement, suspension, closure, and review.

These decisions should be made according to the relevant purpose, access conditions, participation standards, role limits, confidentiality arrangements, safeguarding requirements, data requirements, and delegated authority.

Research decisions

Research decisions may include Commission Requests, Concept Notes, Commissioning Briefs, research design, provider selection, project approval, ethics, data management, participant arrangements, dissemination, Repository deposit, project review, and closure.

Research decisions should protect methodological quality, ethical practice, independence, accurate reporting, participant welfare, privacy, data, and public trust.

Editorial and publication decisions

Editorial decisions may include Journal scope, manuscript selection, peer review, editorial appointment, authorship, publication, correction, retraction, expression of concern, licensing, attribution, and Repository deposit.

Editorial decisions should remain independent of Membership, funding, sponsorship, Partnership, institutional influence, personal relationships, political influence, commercial interest, or another improper factor.

Repository and preservation decisions

Repository decisions may include deposit, access, metadata, licensing, citation, preservation, restriction, embargo, controlled access, correction, withdrawal, versioning, and disposal.

These decisions should take account of ownership, rights, privacy, confidentiality, data, ethics, cultural considerations, preservation responsibilities, legal requirements, and public-interest value.

Financial decisions

Financial decisions may include budgets, expenditure, fees, payment, expenses, honoraria, grants, donations, sponsorship, funding, contracts, provider engagement, financial reporting, audit, restricted funds, return of funds, and closure of support arrangements.

Financial decisions should be made according to the Funding, Sponsorship, and Support framework, financial controls, delegated authority, applicable agreements, and relevant legal, accounting, contractual, and governance requirements.

Partnership and External Collaboration decisions

Partnership and External Collaboration decisions may include exploratory collaboration, Collaboration Confirmations, formal Partnerships, co-hosting, co-commissioning, shared research, data collaboration, funding, sponsorship, communications, agreements, review, suspension, termination, and closure.

These decisions should be made according to the Partnerships and External Collaboration framework and should protect independence, research integrity, editorial independence, privacy, participant welfare, fair process, and public trust.

Privacy, data, consent, and confidentiality decisions

Privacy, data, consent, confidentiality, access, restriction, deletion, correction, security, breach, recording, publication, and information-sharing decisions should be made according to the Privacy, Data, Consent, and Confidentiality framework and any applicable legal, contractual, ethical, safeguarding, research, editorial, or institutional requirements.

Safeguarding decisions

Safeguarding decisions may include risk assessment, appropriate participation arrangements, reporting, escalation, referral, access restrictions, suspension, communication, record keeping, and closure.

Safeguarding decisions should prioritize the welfare, dignity, safety, rights, and interests of affected people.

Complaints, review, and appeal decisions

Complaints, review, appeal, conduct, research-integrity, editorial-integrity, financial, access, Membership, Partnership, safeguarding, privacy, data, or other concerns should be handled through fair, proportionate, independent, and appropriately documented processes.

Material and High-Risk Decisions

A material decision is a decision that may create significant financial, legal, ethical, research, editorial, safeguarding, privacy, data, operational, reputational, strategic, institutional, community, or public-interest consequences.

A high-risk decision is a decision involving a serious, complex, sensitive, uncertain, or potentially harmful matter requiring enhanced assessment, safeguards, oversight, or specialist input.

Material or high-risk decisions may include:

• Approval of significant strategy, policy, structure, or long-term programme
• Entry into a formal Partnership
• Acceptance of significant funding, sponsorship, donation, grant, or in-kind support
• Approval of substantial expenditure
• Appointment or removal of senior governance, research, editorial, financial, safeguarding, data, or operational role holders
• Approval of significant research, project, publication, Repository, event, Working Space, or Community activity
• Approval of activity involving children, vulnerable people, research participants, controlled data, restricted information, cultural knowledge, significant risk, or major public communication
• Decisions to publish, correct, retract, preserve, restrict, withdraw, or remove significant material
• Decisions relating to serious conduct, safeguarding, privacy, data, research-integrity, editorial-integrity, financial, conflict-of-interest, legal, or reputational concerns
• Decisions to suspend, terminate, vary, or close a material Membership, role, project, Partnership, funding arrangement, event, Working Space, or other activity
• Decisions that may affect the rights, safety, dignity, privacy, professional standing, financial position, access, participation, or reputation of a person, community, institution, or organization significantly

Material and high-risk decisions should receive appropriate assessment, conflict-of-interest management, consultation, specialist input, approval, documentation, communication, review, and oversight.

The Commons should maintain a Material Decision and High-Risk Activity Assessment process.

Decision-Making and Delegation

The Commons should maintain a Delegation and Authority Schedule.

The Schedule should identify:

• Which decisions may be made by Commons Administration
• Which decisions require a Designated Authority
• Which decisions require review by more than one person or body
• Which decisions require independent review
• Which decisions require financial, legal, ethical, research, editorial, safeguarding, data, governance, technical, accessibility, or other specialist input
• Which decisions require a formal agreement
• Which decisions require consultation with affected participants, communities, Members, institutions, or other relevant people
• Which decisions may be delegated
• Which decisions must be recorded
• Which decisions may be reviewed, appealed, varied, suspended, or terminated
• What happens when a decision maker has a conflict of interest, is unavailable, or lacks the authority to decide the matter

A person should not make a decision outside the authority granted to them.

Where a person is uncertain about their authority, they should seek guidance or refer the matter to the appropriate Commons route.

Delegation should be clear, written, proportionate, and reviewable.

Delegation does not remove accountability.

A person or body that delegates authority should maintain appropriate oversight of how that authority is used.

Decision-Making Process

The Commons should use a proportionate decision-making process.

A decision may involve the following stages:

• Identifying the question, request, proposal, issue, risk, or decision required
• Confirming the relevant Commons route
• Identifying the person or body with authority to decide
• Gathering relevant information
• Identifying affected people, communities, participants, Members, institutions, partners, funders, providers, or other stakeholders
• Considering whether consultation, community participation, specialist advice, independent review, or another input is required
• Identifying conflicts of interest
• Considering relevant policies, procedures, agreements, access conditions, legal requirements, ethical requirements, financial controls, safeguarding requirements, data requirements, research standards, editorial standards, and other applicable conditions
• Assessing risks, benefits, alternatives, consequences, resources, timing, and sustainability
• Making, recording, communicating, and implementing the decision
• Reviewing the decision where appropriate
• Varying, suspending, reversing, or closing the decision if circumstances change or a serious concern arises

The Commons should not treat every stage as necessary for every decision.

The process should be proportionate.

For example, a routine request for public information may require only an administrative response.

A decision concerning a formal Partnership, significant funding arrangement, controlled data, research participant, editorial dispute, serious complaint, safeguarding concern, or major public output may require several stages, specialist advice, multiple approvals, independent review, and a formal record.

Conflicts of Interest in Decision-Making

Anyone involved in a Commons decision should disclose interests that may be relevant to that decision.

Relevant interests may include:

• Employment or consultancy relationships
• Financial interests
• Institutional affiliations
• Research funding
• Sponsorship arrangements
• Partnership relationships
• Provider relationships
• Intellectual-property interests
• Personal or family relationships
• Competing proposals, contracts, funding applications, research projects, manuscripts, or appointments
• Prior involvement in the matter under discussion
• Political, policy, advocacy, regulatory, professional, or public-position commitments
• Relationships with participants, communities, funders, sponsors, providers, authors, editors, reviewers, researchers, or other relevant parties
• Any other interest that may reasonably affect, or appear to affect, impartiality or public trust

A conflict of interest does not automatically prevent a person from participating.

It may require:

• Disclosure
• Recusal
• Independent review
• Separation of functions
• Restricted access
• Independent moderation
• Alternative decision-making arrangements
• Appointment of another reviewer or decision maker
• Additional oversight
• Another appropriate safeguard

A person should not decide a matter in which they have a material personal, professional, financial, institutional, research, editorial, family, political, commercial, or other interest unless the conflict has been disclosed and managed appropriately.

The Commons should maintain a Conflict-of-Interest Policy, declaration process, register, and review procedure.

Community Participation in Decisions

The Commons should consider meaningful participation by affected people and communities when making decisions that may materially affect them.

Participation may be relevant to decisions concerning:

• Critical Issues
• Community Groups
• Working Spaces
• Research design
• Research participation
• Events and Learning
• Publication
• Repository preservation and access
• Accessibility and inclusion
• Community knowledge
• Lived-experience contribution
• Partnerships and External Collaboration
• Funding and support
• Safeguarding
• Privacy, data, consent, and confidentiality
• Other public-interest, community, institutional, professional, or cultural activity

Participation should not be symbolic, extractive, or used only to endorse a decision that has already been made.

The Commons should consider:

• Who may be affected
• Whose knowledge, experience, rights, or perspective is relevant
• Whether people can participate meaningfully
• Whether support, payment, honoraria, expenses, translation, interpretation, accessibility, or another arrangement is needed
• Whether confidentiality, safety, privacy, cultural restrictions, power differences, or other risks affect participation
• How input will be considered
• How outcomes will be communicated
• How disagreement, feedback, concerns, or withdrawal will be managed

Meaningful participation does not require every decision to be made by every participant.

It requires that the Commons considers relevant perspectives fairly, transparently, and proportionately.

Urgent and Emergency Decision-Making

Some situations may require urgent action.

Urgent decisions may be necessary where there is:aking

• An immediate safeguarding concern
• A significant risk to life, safety, welfare, dignity, privacy, data, security, or rights
• A serious information-security incident
• A serious research-integrity or editorial-integrity concern
• A significant financial, legal, contractual, operational, or reputational risk
• A need to suspend access, activity, an event, Working Space, project, role, publication, Partnership, funding arrangement, or other activity to prevent harm
• Another circumstance in which delay could increase risk materially

In an urgent situation, the appropriate authorized person or body may take proportionate temporary action within the authority available to them.

Temporary action may include:

• Pausing activity
• Restricting access
• Suspending a role
• Suspending an event, Working Space, project, Call, publication, Partnership, funding arrangement, or other activity
• Preserving evidence or records
• Securing systems or information
• Seeking urgent safeguarding, legal, technical, financial, data, ethical, editorial, research, or other specialist advice
• Referring a matter to an appropriate external authority or service where necessary
• Communicating proportionately with affected people

Urgent action should be recorded as soon as reasonably possible.

The decision should be reviewed by the appropriate authority once immediate risk has been addressed.

Urgent decision-making should not be used to bypass ordinary governance without a genuine reason.

Recording and Communicating Decisions

The Commons should maintain records of material and high-risk decisions.

A Decision Record may include:

• The decision to be made
• The relevant Commons activity, policy, procedure, agreement, Group, Working Space, project, event, publication, Repository record, Membership, Partnership, funding arrangement, or other context
• The person or body with authority
• The date of the decision
• Relevant information considered
• Relevant consultation, advice, review, or assessment
• Conflicts of interest declared and how they were managed
• Applicable policies, agreements, requirements, or conditions
• Risks considered and safeguards applied
• The decision made
• Reasons for the decision
• Conditions, actions, responsibilities, timetable, and review date
• Communication arrangements
• Review, appeal, escalation, suspension, variation, or closure routes where applicable

The Commons should communicate decisions appropriately.

Communication may include:

• A direct response to the person or organization concerned
• An update to affected participants, Members, contributors, communities, partners, or institutions
• A public notice
• A decision letter
• A formal agreement
• A publication notice
• A Repository record
• An internal record
• Another appropriate method

The Commons should balance transparency with privacy, confidentiality, safeguarding, data protection, security, cultural rights, research integrity, editorial independence, legal obligations, and the rights of others.

Not every decision or record can be published in full.

Review, Variation, Suspension, and Closure

A decision may need to be reviewed, varied, suspended, reversed, or closed where circumstances change.

This may occur where:

• New evidence becomes available
• A material error, omission, or misunderstanding is identified
• A conflict of interest emerges
• A safeguarding, privacy, data, legal, ethical, research-integrity, editorial-integrity, financial, operational, or reputational concern arises
• A person, participant, Member, community, institution, partner, provider, funder, sponsor, donor, or other affected party raises a concern
• A policy, agreement, legal requirement, access condition, or risk assessment changes
• A related project, event, Working Space, Community Group, publication, Repository record, Partnership, funding arrangement, or other activity changes
• The decision has reached its review date
• The purpose of the decision has been achieved or is no longer relevant

Review should be carried out by a person or body with appropriate authority and, where necessary, sufficient independence from the original decision.

A decision may be varied, suspended, withdrawn, replaced, upheld, referred, or closed.

The Commons should communicate the outcome appropriately and retain a proportionate record.

Governance, Decision-Making, and Operational Documents

The Commons should maintain the following documents and tools to support responsible governance and decision-making.

Governance Structure and Terms of Reference

This should identify the governance structure, roles, responsibilities, powers, relationships, oversight arrangements, reporting routes, appointments, review, and accountability arrangements of the Commons.

Delegation and Authority Schedule

This should identify which decisions may be made by Commons Administration, Designated Authorities, the Commons Governance Authority, or another authorized body.

It should define approval limits, escalation routes, incompatible functions, conflict-of-interest controls, record requirements, review routes, and emergency authority.

Decision-Making and Approval Procedure

This should explain how routine, material, high-risk, urgent, financial, research, editorial, safeguarding, data, access, Partnership, funding, Membership, and other decisions are made, documented, communicated, reviewed, and closed.

Material Decision and High-Risk Activity Assessment

This should identify the information, risks, safeguards, specialist advice, consultation, approvals, and records required before a material or high-risk decision is made.

Decision Record Template

This should provide a consistent record of authority, information considered, conflicts declared, risks, reasons, decisions, conditions, actions, communication, review, and closure.

Meeting, Resolution, and Action Record Template

This should record relevant attendees, declarations of interest, decisions, resolutions, actions, responsibilities, deadlines, review dates, and matters requiring escalation.

Conflict-of-Interest Declaration and Register

This should support disclosure, management, recusal, separation of functions, independent review, monitoring, and record keeping.

Emergency Decision-Making Procedure

This should explain who may take urgent temporary action, what must be recorded, when escalation is required, how affected people are protected, and how the decision is reviewed afterward.

Policy Review and Document-Control Register

This should identify each policy, procedure, framework, agreement, template, or guidance document; its owner; approval date; version; review date; status; related documents; and amendment history.

Governance Review, Suspension, and Closure Procedure

This should explain how significant decisions, roles, structures, agreements, projects, funding arrangements, Partnerships, policies, and other activity are reviewed, varied, suspended, terminated, or closed.

Governance and Decision-Making Enquiries

Use Contact and Support if you need guidance about the governance, authority, decision-making, policies, procedures, standards, review routes, safeguards, or accountability arrangements of the Commons.

You may use this route to:

• Ask how a Commons decision is made
• Seek clarification about a role, authority, responsibility, approval, or delegation
• Ask whether a decision requires a formal process, review, agreement, or specialist input
• Request information about an applicable policy, procedure, agreement, or framework
• Raise a concern about fairness, independence, conflicts of interest, conduct, safeguarding, privacy, data, research, editorial activity, funding, Partnerships, access, or another Commons matter
• Seek review or appeal information where an applicable process provides for this
• Provide feedback on the Commons’ governance arrangements, support routes, policies, systems, or activity.

Conflicts of Interest explains how the Commons identifies, declares, records, manages, reviews, and resolves actual, potential, and perceived conflicts of interest.

It applies across Membership, Community Groups, Working Spaces, research, Journal Publication, Repository activity, events, volunteering, Calls and Opportunities, Partnerships, funding, sponsorship, provider engagement, governance, and other Commons activity.