Hed-Core Academic Commons

Research Integrity and Responsible Research

Research Integrity and Responsible Research explains how the Commons supports, develops, commissions, conducts, reviews, communicates, publishes, preserves, and closes research responsibly.

The Commons believes that rigorous research should be useful, ethical, transparent, independent, accessible, proportionate, and accountable.

Research should contribute to better understanding, public learning, professional practice, policy, community knowledge, institutional development, or another legitimate public-interest purpose.

Research should not be undertaken merely because funding, data, access, technology, institutional support, publication opportunity, or professional advantage is available.

The Commons should undertake or support research only where its purpose, method, governance, participation arrangements, resources, risks, dissemination plans, and closure arrangements can be managed responsibly.

Research integrity is not limited to preventing deliberate misconduct.

It includes the full research lifecycle: identifying a question, defining a purpose, involving relevant people, designing an appropriate method, managing conflicts of interest, protecting participants, handling data responsibly, documenting decisions, analysing evidence fairly, reporting honestly, acknowledging uncertainty, publishing responsibly, preserving research outputs appropriately, correcting errors, and learning from review.

Purpose, Scope, and Principles

This framework applies to all research activity carried out, commissioned, supported, hosted, published, preserved, funded, co-funded, promoted, reviewed, or otherwise connected to the Commons.

It applies to:

  • Commission Requests
  • Concept Notes
  • Commissioning Briefs
  • Research proposals and applications
  • Research projects and programmes
  • Research providers, consultants, institutions, collaborators, advisers, and contractors
  • Literature reviews, evidence reviews, evidence syntheses, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, evaluations, audits, mapping exercises, surveys, interviews, focus groups, workshops, observation, case studies, participatory research, co-produced research, and other research methods
  • Primary, secondary, qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, archival, documentary, digital, administrative, community-based, practice-based, and other forms of research
  • Research involving Members, communities, participants, institutions, Working Spaces, Community Groups, events, Journal contributors, Repository material, or other Commons activity
  • Research data, notes, protocols, consent records, participant information, code, instruments, analyses, findings, reports, publications, Repository records, metadata, corrections, and related materials
  • Research-related events, Calls, funding, Partnerships, external collaboration, publication, dissemination, and public communication
  • Research reviews, concerns, integrity investigations, corrections, withdrawals, retractions, appeals, suspensions, and closures

The Commons should apply the following principles.

Public-interest purpose

Research should have a clear and legitimate purpose.

The Commons should be able to explain:

  • What question, issue, need, gap, challenge, or opportunity the research addresses
  • Why the research is necessary
  • Who may benefit from it
  • Who may be affected by it
  • How the research relates to the Commons’ purpose, Principles, Values, Critical Issues, or approved activity
  • Whether the expected contribution justifies the use of time, resources, participant involvement, data, funding, or other support
  • How the research will be communicated, used, reviewed, preserved, or closed

Honesty and accuracy

Research should be planned, conducted, analysed, interpreted, and reported honestly.

The Commons should not fabricate, falsify, selectively omit, manipulate, misrepresent, plagiarize, conceal, exaggerate, or present evidence in a misleading way.

Research outputs should distinguish, where relevant, between:

  • Research questions and findings
  • Evidence and interpretation
  • Data and inference
  • Facts, assumptions, limitations, uncertainty, opinion, recommendation, and advocacy
  • Participant perspectives and the researchers’ interpretation of those perspectives
  • Preliminary findings and final conclusions
  • Peer-reviewed material, editorially reviewed material, commissioned work, commentary, and other types of output

The Commons should acknowledge uncertainty, methodological limitations, missing data, competing interpretations, relevant conflicts of interest, and constraints on the research.

Independence

Research decisions should be protected from improper influence.

Funders, sponsors, donors, Members, partners, institutions, providers, governments, employers, campaign organizations, commercial interests, political interests, researchers, editors, contributors, and other parties should not improperly determine research questions, methods, evidence selection, analysis, interpretation, findings, publication decisions, correction decisions, or public communication.

Legitimate discussion, feedback, collaboration, commissioning requirements, quality assurance, contractual obligations, and contextual expertise may be appropriate.

However, these should not be used to suppress valid findings, require predetermined conclusions, prevent justified criticism, conceal material limitations, manipulate evidence, or secure favourable treatment.

Respect for participants and communities

Research should respect the dignity, rights, welfare, safety, privacy, agency, knowledge, interests, and contributions of participants and communities.

The Commons should consider:

  • Whether the research is necessary and proportionate
  • Whether participants can give meaningful informed consent where consent is appropriate
  • Whether participation is voluntary and free from improper pressure
  • Whether people can decline, pause, withdraw, or limit participation where appropriate
  • Whether children, adults at risk, people experiencing vulnerability, or people facing unequal power relationships require additional safeguards
  • Whether the research topic, method, setting, language, data collection, publication, or dissemination may create risk, distress, stigma, burden, exposure, or another form of harm
  • Whether community knowledge, cultural knowledge, lived experience, identity-based knowledge, local knowledge, or other forms of contribution require particular care, recognition, protection, or restriction
  • Whether participants and communities can access, understand, question, or respond to relevant findings
  • Whether the research offers reasonable value in relation to the burdens or risks placed on participants and communities

Methodological rigour

Research methods should be appropriate to the question, context, resources, risks, participants, available evidence, and intended use of the findings.

The Commons should not present weak, incomplete, unsuitable, or poorly documented methods as more reliable than they are.

Appropriate rigour may include:

  • A clear research question or purpose
  • A documented method, protocol, plan, or rationale
  • Relevant literature, evidence, context, and prior work
  • Appropriate sampling, recruitment, comparison, inclusion, exclusion, data-collection, analysis, and interpretation methods
  • Clear distinction between evidence, opinion, hypothesis, commentary, and recommendation
  • Quality assurance, peer review, methodological advice, supervision, or independent review where proportionate
  • Accurate citation, attribution, acknowledgement, and source management
  • A documented approach to limitations, uncertainty, missing information, bias, and alternative interpretations
  • Appropriate record keeping, data management, version control, and preservation
  • Transparent explanation of departures from the original method or plan where material

Different disciplines, questions, communities, and methods may require different approaches.

The Commons should avoid imposing one narrow model of evidence or expertise where another method is justified, ethical, rigorous, and appropriate to the research purpose.

Accessibility and inclusion

Research should be designed to reduce unnecessary barriers to participation, contribution, review, access, understanding, dissemination, and benefit.

The Commons should consider accessibility, disability, language, literacy, geography, time zones, digital access, cost, caring responsibilities, identity, institutional status, professional status, community context, power differences, and other relevant circumstances.

Research participation should not be treated as inclusive merely because it is technically open.

Meaningful participation requires accessible information, fair access routes, appropriate support, respectful engagement, and a genuine opportunity for relevant contributions to inform the work.

Accountability and learning

Research should be subject to proportionate governance, oversight, review, record keeping, quality assurance, correction, and learning.

The Commons should be willing to review a research decision, method, finding, output, process, or relationship where credible concerns, new evidence, errors, conflicts of interest, participant-protection issues, privacy concerns, data issues, or integrity issues arise.

Research development and approval

Research should proceed through a clear and proportionate development process.

Not every research activity requires the same level of formal approval.

A short internal evidence scan may require a limited scope, documented sources, clear ownership, and proportionate review.

A commissioned project involving participants, sensitive data, major funding, external providers, formal Partnerships, public publication, controlled access, significant risk, or potential impact on communities may require a detailed proposal, risk assessment, ethics review, data-management plan, participant-information materials, funding review, specialist advice, formal approval, agreement, monitoring, and closure process.

Commission Requests

A Commission Request is the Commons’ route for proposing or identifying research that may require support, commissioning, collaboration, funding, publication, Partnership activity, Repository deposit, or another formal route.

A Commission Request should normally identify:

  • The issue, question, gap, challenge, or opportunity
  • Why the matter is relevant to the Commons
  • The intended public-interest purpose
  • Relevant communities, participants, institutions, practitioners, researchers, or other people who may be affected or whose knowledge may be relevant
  • Known evidence, existing work, relevant data, previous research, and potential duplication
  • The proposed scope, scale, timing, resources, and intended outputs
  • Potential risks, including safeguarding, privacy, data, consent, conflict-of-interest, accessibility, reputational, financial, legal, cultural, community, and Partnership risks
  • Possible methods, providers, collaborators, advisers, or research routes
  • Potential funding, support, or external relationships
  • Expected review, publication, Repository, communication, and closure arrangements

A Commission Request does not guarantee that the Commons will undertake, fund, publish, endorse, or support the proposed work.

The Commons may decide to develop, combine, defer, redirect, reject, refer, publish as an open Call, seek further evidence, request a Concept Note, request specialist advice, or take another proportionate action.

Concept Notes

A Concept Note is an early-stage document used to refine a possible research project before full approval, commissioning, funding, Partnership, or implementation.

A Concept Note may include:

  • The research purpose and question
  • Background, evidence gap, and relevance
  • Intended users, beneficiaries, participants, communities, or audiences
  • Proposed approach and method
  • Likely data, information, evidence, or participant involvement
  • Accessibility and inclusion considerations
  • Safeguarding, privacy, consent, confidentiality, data, and ethical considerations
  • Potential conflicts of interest
  • Potential funders, partners, providers, institutions, or collaborators
  • Anticipated resources, costs, timelines, outputs, and review points
  • Possible dissemination, publication, Repository, licensing, preservation, and closure arrangements

Concept Notes should be treated as exploratory unless formally approved through the appropriate Commons route.

They should not be represented as funded, commissioned, endorsed, approved, or final merely because they have been discussed, submitted, circulated, or developed.

Commissioning Briefs

A Commissioning Brief is a formal document used when the Commons decides to seek a research provider, partner, institution, consultant, team, or other external contributor for an approved research activity.

A Commissioning Brief should state clearly:

  • The research purpose, question, scope, expected contribution, and intended public-interest value
  • The required skills, experience, independence, methodology, quality standards, and relevant expertise
  • Expected participant, community, accessibility, safeguarding, privacy, consent, data, and ethical arrangements
  • The intended outputs, milestones, review points, ownership, authorship, attribution, licensing, publication, Repository, preservation, and dissemination expectations
  • The budget, payment, expenses, funding source, financial conditions, and reporting arrangements where applicable
  • Conflict-of-interest declaration and management requirements
  • Partnership, provider, institutional, confidentiality, intellectual-property, security, and information-sharing arrangements where relevant
  • The selection process, criteria, evaluation route, decision authority, timetable, and review arrangements
  • The circumstances in which the work may be varied, paused, suspended, terminated, or closed

Provider selection should be fair, documented, proportionate, and independent.

A person should not select, assess, appoint, manage, evaluate, or approve a provider where they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that has not been properly managed.

Research Approval

Research approval should be proportionate to the nature and risk of the work.

Before significant research begins, the Commons should consider whether the activity requires:

  • A defined research question, purpose, scope, protocol, or plan
  • A Concept Note, Commissioning Brief, proposal, agreement, or funding approval
  • Research, methodological, ethical, safeguarding, privacy, data, consent, accessibility, financial, legal, editorial, technical, cultural, or institutional advice
  • A conflict-of-interest declaration and management plan
  • A Safeguarding and Participant Protection Risk Assessment
  • A Privacy, Data, Consent, and Confidentiality assessment
  • Participant information, consent materials, communication support, accessible formats, compensation, expense, honorarium, or other participation arrangements
  • A data-management, retention, access, sharing, security, Repository, licensing, or preservation plan
  • Independent review, peer review, external ethics review, institutional review, or another specialist assessment
  • A formal research agreement, provider agreement, Partnership agreement, data-sharing agreement, confidentiality agreement, or other documentation
  • A publication, dissemination, correction, withdrawal, and closure plan
  • Defined authority, responsibilities, budget, milestones, reporting, monitoring, and review dates

No research should begin until the appropriate route has confirmed that it may proceed.

Where the research plan changes materially, the Commons should assess whether further approval, participant communication, consent, risk review, data review, funding review, Partnership review, or another safeguard is required.

Conduct, Participation, and Evidence

Research should be conducted in accordance with the approved purpose, method, safeguards, agreements, and conditions.

Researchers, providers, partners, advisers, contributors, and other relevant people should understand their responsibilities and should not act outside the authority, access, consent, data, confidentiality, safeguarding, or ethical permissions granted to them.

Participant Information and Consent

When research involves people, the Commons should provide clear and accessible information about the activity.

Participant information should be proportionate to the research and should explain, where relevant:

  • The purpose of the research
  • Who is carrying out, commissioning, funding, supporting, or overseeing the work
  • Why the person has been invited or is eligible to participate
  • What participation involves
  • Expected time, location, method, communication route, technology, recording, data collection, follow-up, and possible outputs
  • Whether participation is voluntary
  • Whether a person can decline, pause, withdraw, or change the scope of participation
  • Any foreseeable benefits, burdens, risks, discomforts, limitations, or uncertainties
  • How personal data, research data, recordings, images, notes, quotations, anonymised material, and other information will be used, stored, shared, published, preserved, restricted, or deleted
  • Whether material may be deposited in the Repository, published in the Journal, shared with a partner, used in a report, or made available through another route
  • Payment, expenses, honoraria, reimbursement, incentives, or other support where applicable
  • Confidentiality limits and circumstances in which information may need to be shared
  • Safeguarding, complaints, support, and withdrawal routes
  • Contact details for relevant research, privacy, safeguarding, accessibility, complaints, and support roles

Consent should be meaningful, informed, voluntary, and proportionate to the activity.

Consent should not be treated as meaningful where a person lacks accessible information, faces inappropriate pressure, cannot reasonably understand what is proposed, believes participation is required to obtain a benefit or avoid disadvantage, or is unable to communicate a decision through the available process.

Where a person’s ability to provide meaningful consent is uncertain, the Commons should seek appropriate specialist guidance and consider whether the activity should proceed, be adapted, be delayed, or not take place.

Participant Welfare and Safeguarding

Research should not expose people to unnecessary harm, distress, intrusion, stigma, discrimination, loss of privacy, exploitation, retaliation, financial loss, professional disadvantage, community harm, or another avoidable risk.

The Commons should consider the welfare of participants and communities throughout the research lifecycle.

This includes:

  • Recruitment and eligibility
  • Information and consent
  • Communication methods
  • Interviews, surveys, focus groups, workshops, observation, fieldwork, and other data-collection activity
  • Recording, transcription, translation, interpretation, storage, analysis, publication, and Repository deposit
  • Payments, incentives, expenses, and honoraria
  • Research-team roles, supervision, boundaries, and conflict-of-interest arrangements
  • Safeguarding disclosures, distress, withdrawal, complaints, support, and referrals
  • Dissemination, publication, attribution, anonymity, recognition, and public communication
  • Research closure, follow-up, data retention, and continuing access

Where research raises an immediate or serious safeguarding concern, the Commons should follow the Safeguarding and Participant Protection framework.

Data and Information

Research information should be handled responsibly.

The Commons should collect, access, create, use, store, share, analyse, publish, preserve, restrict, correct, and dispose of information in accordance with the Privacy, Data, Consent, and Confidentiality framework.

Research teams should collect only information that is necessary for the approved purpose.

They should use appropriate access controls, confidentiality arrangements, secure storage, version control, file management, data documentation, retention periods, deletion procedures, and sharing restrictions.

A research data-management plan may address:

  • What information will be collected, created, accessed, or used
  • Why that information is needed
  • Whether information is personal, sensitive, confidential, restricted, controlled, proprietary, cultural, commercial, or otherwise protected
  • How data will be collected, stored, transferred, accessed, backed up, analysed, documented, secured, preserved, shared, restricted, anonymised, pseudonymised, deleted, or destroyed
  • Who may access the information and under what conditions
  • Whether data may be shared with providers, partners, institutions, funders, editors, reviewers, Repository staff, researchers, or other parties
  • Whether information can be deposited in the Repository, published, retained, or reused
  • How withdrawal, correction, access, deletion, restriction, and other requests will be handled
  • What will happen to information at project closure

The Commons should not promise anonymity where it cannot reasonably be protected.

The risk of identification may remain even where direct identifiers have been removed, particularly in small communities, specialist fields, sensitive topics, rare experiences, detailed narratives, linked data sets, images, recordings, locations, or highly contextual research.

Research Quality and Evidence

Research teams should use appropriate methods and should document material decisions.

This includes, where relevant:

  • The research question, scope, protocol, and rationale
  • The evidence base and sources consulted
  • Selection, inclusion, exclusion, recruitment, sampling, and comparison decisions
  • Data-collection methods and changes to those methods
  • Analytical methods, coding, calculations, assumptions, software, models, or tools
  • Quality assurance, validation, checking, supervision, methodological review, peer review, or independent assessment
  • The treatment of missing data, uncertainty, bias, ambiguity, outliers, conflicting evidence, and alternative interpretations
  • The distinction between data, evidence, inference, interpretation, recommendation, and opinion
  • The limitations of the research and the extent to which findings may or may not apply elsewhere

Researchers should not overstate findings.

A finding that is preliminary, context-specific, uncertain, exploratory, contested, based on limited evidence, or not independently reviewed should be described accordingly.

Conflicts of Interest

Everyone involved in research should disclose relevant actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

Research conflicts may arise from:

  • Funding, sponsorship, donations, grants, or in-kind support
  • Employment, consultancy, institutional affiliation, commercial relationships, investments, intellectual-property interests, or anticipated financial benefit
  • Personal, family, supervisory, mentoring, adversarial, collaborative, or close professional relationships
  • Competing research, publication, policy, advocacy, grant, provider, or commercial interests
  • Prior involvement in the research question, decision, dispute, complaint, project, data set, publication, or related activity
  • A role in commissioning, funding, conducting, reviewing, editing, publishing, preserving, promoting, implementing, or evaluating the research
  • Strong public positions that may affect, or appear to affect, impartiality

The Commons should manage conflicts according to the Conflicts of Interest framework.

Disclosure is necessary but may not be sufficient.

Material conflicts may require recusal, restricted access, reassignment, independent review, enhanced transparency, alternative provider selection, alternative authorship or editorial arrangements, or another appropriate safeguard.

Reporting, Publication, Review, and Correction

Research should be reported honestly, accessibly, and in a form appropriate to its purpose, participants, communities, methods, risks, evidence, and intended audiences.

The Commons should seek to make useful research available where this is consistent with participant welfare, privacy, consent, confidentiality, data protection, intellectual-property rights, cultural rights, security, contractual obligations, research integrity, and legitimate access restrictions.

Research Outputs

Research outputs may include:

  • Reports
  • Evidence reviews
  • Briefings
  • Working papers
  • Journal articles
  • Research summaries
  • Policy papers
  • Practice resources
  • Data documentation
  • Methods papers
  • Presentations
  • Event materials
  • Community-facing outputs
  • Learning resources
  • Repository deposits
  • Public communications
  • Other approved outputs

An output should identify its status clearly.

Where relevant, it should state:

  • The purpose and scope of the work
  • The authors, contributors, researchers, providers, institutions, partners, funders, sponsors, and other relevant contributors
  • The method used
  • The evidence base
  • Material limitations, uncertainty, and relevant contextual constraints
  • Relevant conflicts of interest
  • The publication date, version, review status, correction status, licensing, citation, and Repository information
  • Any relevant access restriction, confidentiality limitation, or data-availability statement
  • The distinction between research findings, interpretation, recommendation, and advocacy

Authorship, Attribution, and Acknowledgement

Authorship and attribution should reflect genuine contribution.

The Commons should not grant authorship merely because a person holds a senior role, provides funding, has institutional status, manages a team, or expects recognition.

The Commons should not exclude a person from appropriate acknowledgement or attribution because of lower status, precarious employment, community role, lived experience, disability, language, identity, institutional position, or another unfair reason.

Authorship, contributor roles, acknowledgements, attribution, community recognition, licensing, intellectual-property arrangements, and publication responsibilities should be discussed early and reviewed if the project changes.

The Commons should consider whether participants or communities wish to be named, acknowledged collectively, anonymised, credited in another way, or not identified publicly.

Publication and Repository Deposit

Research may be published through the Journal, Repository, Commons webpages, partner channels, external publishers, events, reports, or another approved route.

Publication and Repository decisions should protect:

  • Research integrity
  • Editorial independence
  • Participant welfare
  • Privacy and confidentiality
  • Meaningful consent
  • Data protection and information security
  • Intellectual-property rights
  • Licensing and attribution
  • Cultural rights and community interests
  • Accessibility and public understanding
  • Appropriate preservation, citation, versioning, correction, and withdrawal arrangements

A Repository deposit should include clear metadata, version information, access conditions, citation information, licensing information, and any applicable embargo, restriction, correction, withdrawal, or preservation notice.

Review and Monitoring

Significant research should be monitored proportionately throughout its lifecycle.

Review may consider:

  • Progress against the approved purpose, method, milestones, budget, agreement, and timetable
  • Whether risks, safeguarding arrangements, privacy arrangements, data arrangements, consent arrangements, access needs, or conflicts of interest have changed
  • Whether participant or community concerns have emerged
  • Whether research quality, provider performance, independence, data quality, analysis, reporting, or communication requires further support or review
  • Whether a decision, method, agreement, funding arrangement, Partnership, publication plan, Repository plan, or closure plan should be varied
  • Whether work should continue, pause, be suspended, be revised, be independently reviewed, or be closed

The Commons may pause, vary, suspend, withdraw, or end research where there is a material concern about participant welfare, safeguarding, privacy, data, consent, integrity, funding, conflict of interest, provider performance, legal requirements, resource sustainability, or another serious risk.

Research Concerns and Misconduct

Anyone may raise a concern about research integrity or responsible research.

A concern may relate to:

  • Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulation, selective reporting, misrepresentation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other dishonest practice
  • Inappropriate authorship, attribution, acknowledgement, citation, or use of another person’s work
  • Inadequate participant information, consent, safeguarding, accessibility, privacy, confidentiality, data security, or data-management practice
  • Research involving unnecessary harm, avoidable risk, exploitation, coercion, discrimination, exclusion, retaliation, or misuse of power
  • Inappropriate funding, sponsorship, Partnership, provider, institutional, political, commercial, editorial, or other influence
  • Misuse of Commons resources, systems, data, Working Spaces, Groups, Membership, Repository material, or research access
  • Failure to follow an approved protocol, agreement, condition, risk assessment, access restriction, or research plan where the departure is material
  • Inaccurate, misleading, incomplete, inaccessible, or improperly attributed public reporting
  • Failure to correct a material error, limitation, disclosure, or research record
  • A serious dispute about research governance, methodology, findings, data, authorship, publication, Repository deposit, or closure

Concerns should be raised through Contact and Support or the appropriate research-integrity, safeguarding, privacy, editorial, complaints, review, or governance route.

The Commons should handle concerns fairly, proportionately, confidentially where appropriate, and with sufficient independence.

The Commons may seek specialist advice, appoint an independent reviewer, restrict access, pause publication, add a note of concern, correct an output, withdraw material, suspend activity, refer the matter to an external institution or authority, or take another proportionate action.

Correction, Withdrawal, and Closure

Research outputs should be corrected where a material error, omission, concern, conflict, limitation, attribution issue, privacy risk, data issue, or other integrity concern is identified.

Depending on the circumstances, the Commons may:

  • Correct the record
  • Publish a clarification, update, or addendum
  • Update metadata, attribution, funding information, conflict-of-interest information, or licensing information
  • Issue a correction notice
  • Add an expression of concern
  • Restrict access temporarily or permanently
  • Replace a file while preserving a version record where appropriate
  • Withdraw, retract, remove, or preserve material with an explanatory notice where justified
  • Refer the matter to an editor, institution, provider, partner, funder, complaints process, safeguarding route, privacy route, or other appropriate authority
  • Conduct an independent review
  • Close the matter when appropriate action has been completed

Research closure should be planned.

At the end of a research activity, the Commons should consider:

  • Whether agreed outputs, reports, payments, records, data-management actions, accessibility arrangements, participant communications, Repository deposits, publication actions, and Partnership obligations have been completed
  • Whether participants or communities should receive an appropriate summary, findings, update, acknowledgement, or follow-up information
  • Whether data, materials, records, code, notes, and outputs should be retained, deposited, transferred, restricted, anonymised, archived, deleted, or securely destroyed
  • Whether findings require correction, further dissemination, implementation, review, or future research
  • Whether lessons should inform future Commission Requests, Concept Notes, Commissioning Briefs, policies, methods, training, provider selection, Partnerships, or governance arrangements
  • Whether a final Decision Record, project record, or closure report is required

Operational Documents and Support

The Commons should maintain proportionate documents, templates, procedures, and records to support responsible research.

Research Integrity and Responsible Research Policy

This should define the Commons’ standards for research purpose, development, approval, independence, participant protection, data, consent, evidence, authorship, publication, Repository activity, review, concerns, correction, withdrawal, and closure.

Commission Request Form

This should provide a structured route for proposing a research question, evidence gap, project, need, issue, opportunity, or potential commissioning activity.

Concept Note Template

This should support early development of a potential research activity before full approval, funding, commissioning, Partnership, provider selection, or implementation.

Commissioning Brief Template

This should set out the scope, method, quality standards, provider requirements, participant safeguards, data arrangements, funding conditions, outputs, review, publication, Repository, and closure requirements for commissioned work.

Research Proposal and Approval Record

This should record the research purpose, method, roles, authority, conflicts of interest, risks, ethics, safeguarding, privacy, data, consent, accessibility, resources, funding, milestones, review, publication, Repository, and closure arrangements.

Research Data-Management Plan

This should document what information will be collected, accessed, created, used, stored, shared, analyzed, published, preserved, restricted, deleted, or transferred during and after the research.

Participant Information and Consent Materials

These should provide clear, accessible, proportionate information about research participation, rights, risks, support, withdrawal, data use, confidentiality, publication, Repository activity, and relevant contacts.

Research Risk and Safeguarding Assessment

This should identify foreseeable risks to participants, communities, researchers, contributors, providers, partners, and others, together with proportionate safeguards and escalation arrangements.

Authorship, Attribution, and Contributor Agreement

This should clarify authorship, contributor roles, acknowledgements, attribution, consent to publication, licensing, intellectual-property arrangements, community recognition, and dispute routes.

Research Progress, Review, and Closure Record

This should support monitoring, variation, suspension, review, final reporting, publication, Repository deposit, data actions, lessons learned, and project closure.

Research Integrity Concern and Review Procedure

This should explain how the Commons receives, assesses, investigates, reviews, records, resolves, appeals, communicates, and closes research-integrity concerns.

Contact and support

Use Contact and Support if you need guidance about a research idea, Commission Request, Concept Note, Commissioning Brief, research proposal, provider engagement, participant involvement, consent, safeguarding, privacy, data, accessibility, authorship, publication, Repository deposit, correction, or research-integrity concern.

You may use this route to:

  • Propose a research question, evidence gap, topic, project, or Commission Request
  • Ask whether a research idea requires formal approval, specialist advice, a Concept Note, a Commissioning Brief, or another route
  • Request guidance on research design, participant involvement, consent, accessibility, safeguarding, privacy, data, publication, Repository deposit, or closure
  • Request a research template, risk assessment, data-management plan, participant-information template, or contributor agreement
  • Raise a concern about research integrity, conflicts of interest, participant welfare, data use, authorship, reporting, publication, provider conduct, or another research matter
  • Ask how to correct, update, restrict, withdraw, or preserve research material
  • Seek review, appeal, or complaint information where an applicable process provides for this
  • Provide feedback on Commons research standards, procedures, Calls, commissioning routes, or research activity

Concerning Research Integrity and Responsible Research the Commons strive to ensure that:

  • Research has a clear public-interest purpose and does not proceed merely because resources, funding, data, access, or professional opportunity are available
  • Commission Requests, Concept Notes, Commissioning Briefs, proposals, approvals, agreements, and closures are clear and proportionate
  • Research questions, methods, evidence, limitations, outputs, and intended uses are explained honestly
  • Research is designed and conducted with appropriate methodological rigour
  • Participants, communities, contributors, and relevant lived experience are considered respectfully and meaningfully
  • Participant welfare, safeguarding, privacy, confidentiality, consent, data protection, accessibility, and inclusion are built into research design and delivery
  • People can participate voluntarily, understand what is being asked of them, request support, and withdraw or limit participation where appropriate
  • Research teams, providers, partners, funders, institutions, editors, reviewers, and contributors understand their roles, authority, responsibilities, and boundaries
  • Conflicts of interest are declared, assessed, recorded, and managed appropriately
  • Funders, sponsors, donors, partners, institutions, providers, and other parties do not obtain improper influence over research questions, methods, analysis, findings, publication, correction, or dissemination
  • Evidence is represented accurately and findings are not fabricated, falsified, selectively reported, plagiarized, exaggerated, or misleadingly presented
  • Authorship, contributor roles, attribution, acknowledgement, licensing, and community recognition are fair and transparent
  • Research outputs distinguish clearly between evidence, findings, interpretation, limitations, recommendation, opinion, and advocacy
  • Publication, Journal activity, Repository deposit, access, preservation, correction, restriction, withdrawal, and versioning are managed responsibly
  • Research concerns can be raised safely and reviewed fairly, independently, and proportionately
  • Errors, limitations, conflicts, and integrity concerns are corrected openly and appropriately
  • Research is monitored, reviewed, learned from, and closed responsibly
  • The Commons produces research that is credible, useful, independent, ethical, accessible, accountable, and worthy of public trust
Editorial Independence and Publication Ethics

Editorial Independence and Publication Ethics explains how the Commons protects fair, rigorous, independent, transparent, and accountable publication.

It applies to the Journal, editorial roles, peer review, authorship, submissions, editorial decisions, corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, licensing, attribution, Repository deposit, publication access, and other Commons publishing activity.