ReportsIJRG

International Journal of Global Risks and Governance

Publisher of record
GCRI for the Nexus Consortium
Editor
Saeed Valadbaygi, Chief Steward and Managing Editor, GCRI
Licence
CC BY 4.0, open access
Report series
17
Networks
7

Draft, not yet released. In stewardship review. Not indexed until the first approved release.

GRF Public Deliberation · Start here

Start here: how this desk of Reports works

Abstract. Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication, and the Global Risks Forum writes the desk that records public deliberation. If you sat in a convening, a council or a dialogue, this is where what you concluded, and where you disagreed, becomes part of the record.

For
convening participants, council members and public bodies
Status
Draft, not yet released

01What Reports is

Reports is the Consortium’s quarterly publication, and the Global Risks Forum writes the desk that records public deliberation. If you sat in a convening, a council or a dialogue, this is where what you concluded, and where you disagreed, becomes part of the record.

Atlas of the GRF Public Deliberation desk: its mandate, the series it leads, the eight chapters of its edition, what to send here and its Zenodo community. The sections below give the same facts as text.
The GRF Public Deliberation desk atlas, with its facts written out below.

02This desk: Public Deliberation

The Forum holds the public meaning of an edition. It reports what a convening was asked, what it concluded, where participants dissented and which questions stayed open.

Mandate: 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.

Series this desk leads:

  • Observatory Signal
  • Strategic Systems
  • Evidence Brief

03The six desks

Public Deliberation is one of six desks, and it deposits to its own Zenodo community under the flagship.

Diagram of the six desks and the flagship Zenodo community nexusreports. The table below lists the desks.
The six desks
DeskEditionZenodo community
GCRISystems Evidencenexusreports-gcri
GRFPublic Deliberationnexusreports-grf
GRACapital Readinessnexusreports-gra
NXSStandards Progressnexusreports-nxs
RACapabilitynexusreports-ra
GRXMeasurementnexusreports-grx

Every record carries a DOI and a full version history.

04The edition in eight chapters, in this desk’s terms

The frame is shared with the other desks, so a reader can compare a Forum edition with a systems edition chapter by chapter.

The eight chapters of the Public Deliberation edition
ChapterTitleWhat it covers
1What was asked, and by whomThe questions put to the convenings of the cycle, and the bodies and roles that put them.
2Conclusions and dissentWhat the convenings concluded, with the dissent recorded beside each conclusion.
3Positions by sectorThe positions stated by sector and by type of body, attributed to those who hold them.
4Public concernsThe concerns raised by the public and by civil society, as they were raised.
5Deliberated scenariosThe scenarios the convenings discussed, and what participants said would change their view.
6Readings from the other desksReadings from the other desks: cross-references to their editions for the same scope, not copies of them.
7Commitments asked forThe commitments participants asked of institutions, recorded as requests, not as agreements.
8Session recordsThe record of each session: agenda, participation by role, materials and outcome.

05How to contribute

Send the Forum the outcome of a convening, a stakeholder position or a recorded dissent. A dissent is not a defect here. It is part of what the desk publishes.

This desk 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

The gateway page of the GRF Public Deliberation desk gives the route.

06The editorial workflow

A position sent to the Forum follows the same steps as any other work. Reasons for every decision are recorded, so a participant can see why a position was or was not taken up.

Diagram of the editorial workflow in six steps: submit, screen, review, decide, accept, publish, with a revision branch and a decline or appeal branch. The list below gives every step.
The editorial workflow
StepWhat happens
1. SubmitContributor declarations and licence terms are signed first.
2. ScreenEditors check scope, completeness and licensing.
3. ReviewPeer review runs under the model declared at submission. Authors may revise, then the work returns to review.
4. DecideNamed editors decide and record their reasons. Declined work can be appealed through a separate route.
5. AcceptThe decision is recorded and the work moves to production.
6. PublishA named editor publishes. The DOI is issued.

Refusals are written to a hash-chained log: before_window, after_window, wrong_state, agreement_required, passes_missing, approver_is_author. No request carries a time. No capability overrides a gate. Voting is advisory and never moves a submission.

07The sixteen-gate quarterly cycle

Convenings run on their own calendar. The cycle tells you the last date a session record can reach the next edition, and the date after which it waits a quarter.

Diagram of the sixteen gates of a quarterly cycle, from the call opening to the corrections window closing. The list below gives every gate.
The sixteen gates of a quarterly cycle
OrderGateMeaning
1call_openThe call opens.
2call_closeThe call closes.
3submission_deadlineLast moment to submit into this cycle. Later submissions roll to the next cycle.
4triage_closeIntake triage must be finished.
5review_openThe review window opens.
6reviewer_reminderFirst reminder to reviewers.
7review_closeReviews are due. Overdue reviews escalate and are reassigned.
8decision_dateThe editorial decision is due.
9revision_closeThe revision window ends.
10copyedit_freezeCopyedit and data-check freeze.
11evidence_closeEvidence close.
12production_closeProduction ends.
13release_approvalThe named approver signs the release.
14releaseRelease date. It is the anchor of the cycle.
15deposit_approvalZenodo deposit approval. The deposit stays a draft until then.
16corrections_closeThe corrections window ends.

Cycle codes are 2026-BASELINE, then 2027-Q1 to 2027-Q4. The release date is the only date the owner sets. Until it is set, every gate is unscheduled and every gated step is refused.

08Release control

The checks matter to a participant for one reason. A session record is cited only after the data and legal checks pass, and the approver cannot be one of its authors.

Diagram of release control: seven checks must pass, the named approver signs, six artefacts are fixed with checksums, the Zenodo deposit stays a draft, then the record is published with a DOI.
  • Check: Peer review passes.
  • Check: Data check.
  • Check: Citation check.
  • Check: Accessibility check.
  • Check: Legal check.
  • Check: Licence and file rules.
  • Check: Approver is not an author.
  • The named approver signs a plan bound to the release digest.
  • Six artefacts are fixed, each with a SHA-256 checksum: edition-pack, web, print, data-bundle, ro-crate, citation-metadata.
  • The Zenodo deposit stays a draft until the deposit approval gate.
  • The record is published with a DOI. A correction is a new version that keeps the concept DOI.

Release approval, deposit approval and publication are separate acts.

09Open licensing

Reusing a deliberation record needs no permission beyond the licence. Text is CC BY 4.0. Say so to participants before they speak on the record.

Licence rules

  • Text, figures and maps: CC BY 4.0 (SPDX: CC-BY-4.0).
  • Data: CC0 1.0 (SPDX: CC0-1.0).
  • Code: an OSI-approved licence.
  • Media: CC BY 4.0 or CC0 1.0.
  • No NC, ND or SA licence on our own outputs. No paywall, no embargo on text, no fees.

Shared text. It is the same on every Reports site by design.

10Zenodo community and DOIs

Session records are deposited to the Forum’s own community on Zenodo. It exists and is curated; the Forum reviews every submission, and no record is in it yet.

This desk’s community: zenodo.org/communities/nexusreports-grf

  • Flagship community: nexusreports. It exists and holds records today.
  • Every record carries a DOI and a full version history. A correction becomes a new version and keeps the concept DOI.

Shared text. It is the same on every Reports site by design.

11The open science stack, with its honest status

Participants with an ORCID can be credited for their contribution. The status of every other integration is shown below.

Diagram of the open science stack with the status of each integration. The table below gives every status.
The open science stack and its status
IntegrationWhat it doesStatus
ZenodoDOIs, deposits and versionsBuilt
ORCIDContributor identity and review creditBuilt
RORInstitution identifiersNeeds the id
COAR NotifyInbox for peer review servicesBuilt
OAI-PMHA harvesting endpointBuilt
JATS XMLJournal article markupBuilt
RO-CrateResearch object packagingBuilt
CrossrefAn export, not in useExport only

Free and open routes only. Production deposits stay gated until adoption.

Cite

Reports, GRF Public Deliberation, start here [Draft under review]. The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI) for the Nexus Consortium.

Review copy. The DOI is issued at deposit. Text under CC BY 4.0.

CC BY 4.0 Free to read. Text and figures: CC BY 4.0. Data: CC0 1.0. Authors keep copyright. Published by GCRI Canada.

Your role here

What you can do from this page.

  • ReaderCite what you read; every correction is public.Corrections log
  • 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
The Global Risks Forum

Convening · leadership · urgency

Not for profit

Our articles, maps and twins are free to read and free to republish. Readers and partners keep it that way.

Partner with us

Who funds us

GRF is a not-for-profit institution. To ask who funds a piece of work, use the funding questions form.

Independence

Editors and the expert reviewers named on each article decide what we publish. Funders and partners do not review or approve articles before publication.

Licence

Articles: CC BY 4.0. Figures, maps, twins and data: CC BY 4.0. Other uses: ask through the permissions form.