GCRI · Trust and accountability
Scientific and editorial integrity
Everything The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) publishes is reviewed on method, labelled by evidence type, open to criticism and corrected in the open. The standards for GCRI pages, papers and reports are below: review, method disclosure, criticism and corrections. Institutional influence cannot decide a scientific conclusion. Part of trust and accountability.
01Contents
Scientific and editorial integrity in four parts.
02Standards
Four standards for everything published.
The standards apply equally to a web page, a technical paper and a flagship report.
Review
Accepted on method
Qualified, conflict-managed reviewers and the publisher accept work on its method, not on who funded or hosted it.
Methods
Disclosed and checkable
Each finding links to its sources, methods and review, with its uncertainty stated.
Criticism
Welcome and recorded
Dissent and adverse findings are preserved, and a rejected recommendation receives a reasoned disposition.
03Evidence labels
Every result says what kind of evidence it is.
- Observed
- Published statistics
- Institution-reported
- Estimated
- Modelled
- Forecast
- Scenario
- Expert judgement
- Unknown
Published statistics names a source type, not an endorsement. Missing data is shown as missing, never as zero.
04Process
How the process runs.
Process
How a correction moves
Anyone may request a correction without membership; an accepted one becomes a new version, and the earlier version stays on record with the reason.
01 Reporter
- 01Anyone may ask for a correctionActor · AnyoneAnyone may ask for a correction, without membership. No membership or Account is needed to report harm or correct public information.
02 Route and acknowledge
- 02Routed by kind of concernStepA scientific correction or integrity concern goes to the responsible editor or source owner.
- 03AcknowledgementRecordAnyone who raises a question, shares local knowledge or reports a concern gets an acknowledgement and an issue disposition.
03 Review
- 04Review by editor or source ownerStep · The responsible editor or source ownerA reviewer with a declared conflict never signs the relevant acceptance.
- 05Complaint about a decisionStep · A reviewer not responsible for the decisionA programme or decision complaint is reviewed by someone not responsible for the contested decision.
- 06Privacy, security and safeguarding queuesStepPrivacy and rights requests go to the Privacy Officer queue, security reports to the security disclosure queue.
04 Outcome
- 07Accepted correction becomes a new versionRecordAn accepted correction creates a new recorded version.
- 08Issue disposition recordedRecordThe reporter gets an issue disposition and, where appropriate, a remedy or referral. The docs name no appeal for a declined correction.
05 Carried into the record
- 09Affected analysis re-run with corrected inputsStep · Foundry pillarThe affected analysis is re-run with the corrected inputs.
- 10Change proposal to the standardsRecord · Nexus StandardsMethod and correction findings go to Nexus Standards as change proposals (F06). It records the correction as a change to the evidence.
- 11Courses that taught the finding updatedStep · Risk AcademyRisk Academy updates any course that taught the corrected finding.
- 12New version with correction and reasonRecord · ReportsReports publishes a new version with the correction and its reason. The earlier version stays on record with the correction history.
Status and service levels · Reports · The programme yearDesigned process, not a record of any case: no cycle has run and every programme is at service level R0, information and enquiries. A gate is a programme decision, never a public-authority approval, a certification or a deployment authorisation. The competent authority decides.
05Editorial rules
What GCRI pages will and will not say.
- 01
Status in plain terms
Present tense only for what operates now; planned services are described as designed, as recorded in the claims and readiness register.
- 02
No unrecorded claims
No partners, members, offices, counts, fees or results without a record.
- 03
No superlatives
No rankings of institutions, no prestige lists and no promotional language.
- 04
Release follows review
Not publicity deadlines. A planned report is never shown as released.
06Related
Integrity across the programme.
Research practice is set out under research integrity and the correction process under corrections and concerns. Report governance is set out at Reports editorial governance. The Global Risks Alliance (GRA) publishes its evidence and data standards.
07Questions
Questions and answers.
Who is the publisher of a GCRI page?
GCRI, through the organisation named on the page, GCRI Canada or GCRI US. Specialist platforms name their legal publisher.
Can a reviewer block publication?
Reviewers can find that work does not meet the standard. The publisher then decides with the record of review, and disagreements are preserved.
How are AI-generated drafts handled?
A draft prepared with AI tools is not reviewed work. It is checked by qualified people before publication, and authors and editors remain responsible.
How can I criticise a GCRI publication?
Write to the integrity concern form. Substantive criticism is reviewed and recorded, and an accepted point leads to a correction or a published response.
Do GCRI pages use promotional language?
No. Pages avoid superlatives, prestige lists and claims without records. If you find one, report it to the integrity address and it will be corrected.
The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation
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
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.