GCRI · Trust and accountability
Safeguarding and complaints
Everyone who takes part in the work of The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI), including experts, students, volunteers, community members and staff, should be safe and treated fairly. Below: fair process, protection for people who raise concerns, appeal and reporting. Safeguarding concerns use a restricted route, never a public forum or a chatbot. Part of trust and accountability.
Safeguarding and complaints in three parts.
Two routes, kept separate.
Choose the route that fits. If you are unsure, use the safeguarding route and it will be directed appropriately.
Safety or wellbeing of a person
Write to the safeguarding report form. A restricted route, handled by a small number of designated people.
A decision or how you were treated
Write to the integrity concern form. Reviewed by someone not responsible for the contested decision.
The Consortium is not an emergency service. If someone is in immediate danger, contact your local emergency services first.
How a matter is handled.
- 01
Acknowledgement
You receive a reference and the name of the next step. No response time is promised, and urgent risks to a person are prioritised.
- 02
Confidential handling
Information is shared only with those who need it to address the matter, or where the law requires.
- 03
Fair to everyone
People concerned are told what is alleged and can respond, unless that would put someone at risk.
- 04
Reasoned outcome
The outcome is recorded with its reasons.
- 05
Appeal
You can ask for a review of the outcome by someone not involved in the original decision.
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.
Raising a concern in good faith is protected.
No one should suffer retaliation for raising a concern in good faith. Retaliation is itself treated as a serious matter. Supervised assignments for students and volunteers exclude unsupervised high-consequence work, and working groups have named supervisors.
Other institutions run their own routes: see GRF participant safeguarding. Related GCRI pages: corrections and concerns and experts, volunteers and students.
Questions and answers.
Can I raise a concern anonymously?
Will the person I complain about know it was me?
Does this cover events and online spaces?
Is there a membership requirement to complain?
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.