Guides and policies.
Every guide, policy, declaration and checklist of GRF Public Deliberation, published by The Global Risks Forum (GRF), grouped by who needs it. What convenings, councils and the public concluded: positions, dissent and open questions.
What GRF Public Deliberation asks of you.
The record of deliberation: what a convening, council, dialogue or working group was asked, what it concluded, where participants disagreed and which questions stayed open. Read the guides below with this remit in mind; The Global Risks Forum (GRF) decides what it takes.
GRF Public Deliberation takes:
- The outcome of a convening, with its agenda and who took part, by role
- A stakeholder position, stated by the body that holds it
- A recorded dissent or minority view
- A question a convening left open for the next edition
Its reading role is public meaning. Contributions reach it through the form reports.contribution.grf, and its records are deposited in the Zenodo community nexusreports-grf.
Prepare and send your work.
- Author guidelineswhat the desk takes, what to declare, the review model and timelines
- Submit to the journalthe staged-review submission, with a reference
- Contributethe routing table and the short contribution form
- Check a submissionfollow a reference to its current step
- Templatesthe structures of an edition, chapter, brief, dataset and profile
- Contributor onboarding checklistwhat to have ready before you send
- Authorship and credit declarationwho did what, in CRediT roles
- Contributor agreementthe terms a contribution is made under
- Contribution termsthe legal terms of a contribution
Review for the desk.
- Reviewer guidelinesconflicts, confidentiality, the six-criterion rubric and timing
- Become a reviewerjoin the reviewer pool
- Peer review policythe review models and how decisions use reviews
- Reviewer charterwhat the desk asks of a reviewer, and what it owes one
- Reviewer onboarding checklistthe steps before a first review
- Conflict of interest declarationwhat to declare and when
- Open peer review logpublished reviews, with the reviewers’ consent
Run the desk.
- Editor handbookscreening, reviewer invitations, decisions and production
- Editor charterthe editor’s duties and limits
- Editorial board charterhow the board decides, in public
- Editorial independence statementwho can and cannot influence a decision
- Quarterly release checklistthe checks before an edition is released
- Incident response for publication errorswhat happens when a published page is wrong
- Editorial boardwho decides on this desk
Deposit, licence and reuse.
- Open sciencethe Zenodo steps and the deposit builder
- Data sharing and reuse guidehow data enters an edition and how to reuse it
- Open access and licensing policytext under CC BY 4.0, data under CC0
- Licensing FAQcommon licence questions, answered
- Research and data termsthe legal terms for research use of the data
- Preservation and continuity planhow records outlive a site
Raise a concern.
- Ethics and COPE policyconflicts, complaints, misconduct, appeals and retractions
- Research integrity declarationwhat an author declares about the work
- Ethics and misconduct procedurehow an allegation is handled
- Corrections, retractions and appeals policythe rules behind every notice
- Corrections logevery notice on this desk, newest first
- Complaints and integritywhere a complaint goes
- Takedown and dispute procedurerights claims and disputes
Declare any use of AI.
Read, take part and tell us what fails.
What you can do from this page.
- ReaderNew to the reports? A short guide to reading an edition.Start here
- ContributorSend evidence, data or a correction to this desk.Contribute
- ReviewerReview for this desk; verified reviews are credited.Become a reviewer
- Editor, steward or boardQueues, decisions and production are in the workspace.My workspace
CC BY 4.0 Free to read. Text and figures: CC BY 4.0. Data: CC0 1.0. Authors keep copyright. Published by the Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI Canada).