GCRI · Registry
Rights and disclosure
Every record carries rights: who owns the content, under what licence it may be reused, who may see it and when it may be withdrawn. Openness serves verification and reuse, but some records hold personal, sensitive, culturally protected or commercially restricted information. This page sets out how licences, access classes, embargoes and withdrawals are recorded, where they conflict, and what rights holders and reviewers need before a record is disclosed to a wider audience.
Rights and disclosure in seven parts.
- 01The questionRights and disclosure: how the risk develops
- 02In the five domainsRights decide what each domain’s data may be used for
- 03IndicatorsWhat is measured, and how well
- 04SourcesWhere the evidence comes from
- 05DecisionsWho decides, and what the evidence serves
- 06Core questionsWhat experts ask about disclosure
- 07MechanismsWhy disclosure decisions are hard
Rights and disclosure: how the risk develops.
Publication rights, withdrawal and audience. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Licence ambiguity
A record has no licence, a licence in prose only, or one licence on the landing page and another in the metadata. Careful reusers avoid it, careless ones reuse it wrongly, and holders cannot enforce terms that were never stated clearly.
Audience leakage
A record meant for a programme team is exported, cached or indexed alongside public ones. Restricted fields appear in search results or partner copies, and once harvested the disclosure cannot be reversed.
Embargo slippage
Embargo end dates can be recorded without being enforced, or enforced without being recorded. Content is then released early against agreements, or stays closed long after obligations end, defeating the openness that funders require.
Withdrawal against the record
A rights holder asks for removal while the scholarly record calls for persistence. Erasure rights, takedown notices and retraction norms pull in different directions, and an unrecorded removal leaves citations pointing at nothing.
Interoperability console.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Interoperability console
Rights and disclosure · Crosswalk · Profile v2
Field mappings
| identifier | id | copy | Pass |
| evidence_label | quality.label | enum map | Pass |
| licence | rights.licence | SPDX id | Ambiguous |
| version | version | semver | Pass |
Conformance
Rights decide what each domain’s data may be used for.
- HealthIn practiceHealth data are used only under their legal basis.What a reader can checkPurpose and basis recorded
- BiodiversityIn practiceIndigenous data follow CARE principles.What a reader can checkRights-holder terms
- EnergyIn practiceGrid topology stays restricted.What a reader can checkSensitivity class
Rights records are attached to every dataset used in Reports. Machine-readable obligations are the subject of NS-10 in the proposed Nexus Standards.
- Rights-holder concerns about any use.
- Licence corrections.
Stocks, flows, delays and a tipping threshold.
Two stocks, pressure and adaptive capacity, joined by a reinforcing growth loop, a delayed balancing response and damage when pressure outruns capacity; past the threshold the system can tip. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.
Controls
- Growth of pressure
- 6.0% a year
- Efficacy of capacity in reducing pressure
- 4.0% a year
- Investment response to perceived pressure
- 20%
- Perception delay
- 4.0 years
- Tipping threshold of pressure
- 60 index
- Amplification past the threshold
- 2.0 times
- Years simulated
- 50 years
Readouts
- Peak pressure
- 113 index
- Capacity at the end
- 186 index
- Years over the threshold
- 15.8 years
Numbers, methods and sources
| Year | Pressure | Capacity | Perceived |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 20.0 | 50.0 | 20.0 |
| 4 | 23.3 | 44.9 | 21.2 |
| 8 | 27.2 | 42.2 | 24.0 |
| 12 | 31.7 | 42.3 | 27.7 |
| 16 | 36.8 | 45.5 | 32.2 |
| 20 | 42.3 | 51.5 | 37.2 |
| 24 | 47.9 | 60.3 | 42.6 |
| 28 | 53.2 | 71.3 | 48.0 |
| 32 | 57.8 | 84.3 | 53.1 |
| 36 | 66.4 | 98.4 | 58.4 |
| 40 | 82.7 | 115.9 | 69.7 |
| 44 | 97.8 | 139.7 | 83.8 |
| 48 | 109.1 | 169.4 | 97.3 |
Methods
- System dynamics Forrester (1961), Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press; Sterman (2000), Business Dynamics
- Critical transitions and tipping points Scheffer and others (2009), Early-warning signals for critical transitions, Nature 461
- Causal loop diagram Sterman (2000), Business Dynamics, McGraw-Hill
- Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
No observed data enters this model: it runs on the teaching values set by the controls, to be replaced with a programme’s own evidence.
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Registry in Foundry
- Tested at Registry in Universe
- Codified in Foundations and Governance in Standards
- Published in Registry in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Governance, Policy and International Affairs in Academy
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Records with a machine-readable licence | share of records | monthly | Licence metadata | OBSERVED |
| Records with an access class | share of records | monthly | Schema validation | OBSERVED |
| Licence conflicts between metadata and landing page | count | quarterly | Sampled comparison | OBSERVED |
| Embargoes past their end date and unreleased | count | weekly | Embargo register | OBSERVED |
| Withdrawal and takedown requests | count by stated ground | quarterly | Case records | REPORTED |
| Time to act on a takedown request | days | per case | Case records | OBSERVED |
| Disclosure reviews completed before wider release | share of releases | monthly | Review records | OBSERVED |
How rights and disclosure is modelled, measured and tested.
The model, its assumptions, its data and its uncertainty, in the form a scientist or engineer would check. Structures follow published methods. The values drawn are illustrative, not findings.
Datasets and provenance
The data classes behind rights and disclosure and what is recorded about each before it is used.
| Data class | Provenance recorded | Resolution stated | Licence checked |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satellite imagery, optical and radar | sensor, processing level, acquisition date | pixel size and revisit | per scene |
| Reanalysis and climate model output | model, experiment, member, version | grid and time step | per release |
| In-situ sensors and gauges | station, instrument, calibration record | point and sampling rate | per network |
| Population and asset exposure | method, vintage, input sources | cell size and unit | per release |
| Boundaries and reference geography | producer, edition, date | scale | per edition |
- Lineage
- W3C PROV record from source to figure
- Principles
- FAIR: findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable
- Gaps
- shown as missing, never filled silently
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Creative Commons licence suite | Standard licences with machine-readable identifiers for reuse terms | Licence texts free to use |
| SPDX License List | Standard short identifiers for software and data licences | Open data, free to reuse |
| RightsStatements.org | Standard statements of copyright and reuse status for cultural and research objects | Open, free to apply |
| Local Contexts Hub | Traditional Knowledge and Biocultural Labels and Notices attached to records | Free to use under Local Contexts terms |
| Sherpa Romeo | Publisher and journal policies on self-archiving and embargoes | Free to search, Jisc terms |
| W3C ODRL Information Model | A vocabulary for permissions, prohibitions and duties in machine-readable form | W3C document licence, free to implement |
| cOAlition S Journal Checker Tool | Routes to compliance with funder open access requirements | Free to use |
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Registry prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Rights holders and authors | Under which licence and to which audience a record may be released | Funder requirements, publisher policies and the record’s sensitive fields |
| Data protection officers | Whether personal data in a record may be disclosed, restricted or erased | Access class, lawful basis, retention and the public interest in a persistent record |
| Indigenous data governance bodies | Whether and how community data or knowledge may be shared | CARE principles, Local Contexts labels and the community’s recorded terms |
| Platform publishers and repository managers | Whether to act on a takedown or withdrawal request | The request’s grounds, the rights record and the policy for leaving a tombstone |
Outputs this topic produces
- Rights panels showing licence, rights holder, access class and embargo for every record
- A disclosure review step before any record moves to a wider audience
- A withdrawal and takedown route with its grounds and the tombstone it leaves
- Machine-readable licence identifiers carried in every export
What experts ask about disclosure.
- Who holds the right to publish a record, and who can veto it?
- How should audiences be defined when a record is useful but sensitive?
- When does a public interest in disclosure outweigh a private interest in protection?
- How is protected and Indigenous knowledge kept under its holders’ control?
- What remains visible after a record is withdrawn?
Why disclosure decisions are hard.
Disclosure risk is cumulative. A record that is harmless alone can identify a person or a vulnerable site when combined with others, which is why statistical agencies apply disclosure control before releasing data. Rights are also layered: an author may hold copyright, a funder may require open access, a community may hold collective rights over traditional knowledge, and a data subject holds privacy rights that override both.
Research data communities summarise the aim as findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable, while principles for Indigenous data governance add collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility and ethics. The Registry’s three classes, public, restricted and protected, are described on rights and visibility.
How rights are applied.
- 01
Classification at entry
Each record receives a visibility class and licence before release, decided by its owner within the law.
- 02
Audience control
Restricted records are visible only to people authorised for a purpose, enforced with access controls from cybersecurity and cryptography.
- 03
Withdrawal
Withdrawal removes a record from public view; its identifier resolves to a notice with the date and any replacement.
- 04
Limits
Nothing published can be fully recalled. Disclosure judgements involve values as well as rules, and re-identification risk changes as other data becomes available.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Cybersecurity and cryptographyTamper-evident record history · Signed exports and releases · Threat modelling of edit pathsApplied here
- 02Digital identity and public digital systemsIssuer authentication and authority · Contributor disambiguation by the personApplied here
- 03Data engineering, interoperability and stewardshipSchema-validated ingestion · Persistent identifier reconciliation · Lineage capture in pipelinesApplied here
Where this page’s references lead.
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
Questions and answers.
Why is a record without a licence a problem?
What is left when a record is withdrawn?
How do the CARE principles relate to open data?
Can a published record be made private again?
Can the Registry publish a record because it is in the public interest?
Where do privacy requests go?
Are restricted records listed publicly?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GCRISend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGCRISee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a method, a dataset or a question.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.