|
| Editorial
Support | Editorial Policy |
Background
An Editorial Policy Working Group was
convened in 2002 to take forward the question
of editorial policy on the OPEN FORUM website,
in our publications and in other related OPEN
FORUM information outputs.
The Editorial Policy Working Group consisted
of Prof. Vishwendra N. Thakur (Chair), Kumar
Aman, Suresh Gaur, Russi Mody, Santosh Bhardwaj,
and people at Editorial Department of Open Forum.
The peer review policy was updated by the Strategic
Management Group in 2006 and the website section
was updated following consultation in 2008.
Purpose
The OPEN FORUM Editorial Policy stems
from recognition that:
| • |
The
Organization’s reputation is a key
asset that has been built up over many
years, and is a core part of our identity
and comparative advantage. |
| • |
Our
reputation rests on a multiplicity of
factors. Our diversity of approaches and
viewpoints and our willingness to advocate
new and sometimes controversial positions
are among our key strengths. So too are
our high standards in terms of thoroughness
and intellectual rigour. We also endeavour
to be good and trustworthy partners to
the many individuals and organizations
we work with, and to be effective communicators
and advocates for change. |
| • |
The
‘quality’ of the work we publish
under the OPEN FORUM logo and attribution
has an important bearing on our reputation.
However, research quality is not something
that can be determined absolutely. This
is particularly so in a multi-disciplinary
research environment where views on what
constitute sound methodology and evidence
can differ. |
For these and other reasons, views on what
constitutes ‘good research’, and
what is in the best interests of the Organization,
can vary for entirely legitimate reasons. This
Policy aims to provide a framework for working
out such differences of opinion and finding
a practical and broadly acceptable way forward
across a range of situations.
Principles
The core principles underlying this
Policy are that:
| • |
OPEN
FORUM believes strongly in the importance
of academic freedom, which includes the
right for OPEN FORUM and its employees
to publish controversial findings, to
draw challenging conclusions, and to take
a radical stance. |
| • |
With
this freedom comes a responsibility to
back up conclusions with thorough research,
and to take care in the way views are
communicated so as to contribute to informed
debate. |
| • |
In
the interest of the Organization as a
whole, OPEN FORUM should exercise judgement
in sensitive cases. While respecting the
right of individuals to publish their
views in a personal capacity, the reputation
of OPEN FORUM and its collaborators must
also be respected and protected. |
Practicalities
In order to maintain the core principles,
the Policy is implemented through two separate
mechanisms, each with different functions:
| • |
An
Editorial Review Group (ERG) is responsible
for overseeing the Policy. It is convened
on an ad hoc basis to deal with specific
matters drawn to its attention. This group
provides advice on engaging with controversial
issues in a productive, informed manner.
|
| • |
A
Peer Review Procedure to deal with routine
publishing, both on paper and on the website.
The process of Peer Review aims to ensure
high quality of all OPEN FORUM outputs,
and reinforce existing good practice.
|
Editorial Review Group (ERG)
The remit of the Editorial Review Group
is to:
| • |
Oversee
the operation of the Editorial Policy. |
| • |
Deal
with cases drawn to its attention in order
to protect the core principles outlined
above. |
| • |
Provide
advice and support to OPEN FORUM staff
in situations when they take up controversial
positions, providing critical comment
to help them make their arguments more
robust, advising them on how best to present
their findings, and supporting them when
they are under unreasonable pressure to
tone something down. |
| • |
Exercise
judgement in difficult cases, and decide
how to balance the trade-offs involved. |
It can act both before and after publication,
reviewing potentially controversial material
prior to wider release, and helping the Director
and colleagues deal with issues that crop up
after publication.
Membership
| • |
The
ERG will usually have seven members, and
will be made up of five researchers (not
all of whom need necessarily be Fellows),
one senior administrator, and the Head
of Communications. There will be no alternates.
|
| • |
Members
will be appointed by the Director, who
will seek to maintain a balanced membership
in terms of, for instance, gender, academic
background and age. |
| • |
Researchers
on the Group will have a term of three
years. Initial appointments will be for
staggered terms to allow rotation of members
while providing some continuity: two researchers
will be appointed for three years, two
for two years, and one for one year. The
senior administrator and Head of Communications
will be permanent members of the Group.
|
| • |
The
quorum for the Group will be four, including
at least three researchers, and one of
the non-researcher members. By having
a relatively large group, the intention
is that the ERG will be able to be convened
at short notice, when required, and be
quorate even when a number of members
are away from the Organization. |
| • |
The
Group will be responsible for selecting
its own Chair, and Deputy Chair, as well
as co-opting a secretary to act in a support
role. |
| • |
When
consensus cannot be reached, decisions
will be made by a vote and simple majority.
The Chair (or in their absence the Deputy
Chair) will have an additional casting
vote in cases where votes are tied. |
Procedures
| • |
The
ERG will meet on an ad hoc basis to review
matters referred to it. At the request
of the Director or one of its members
it may also meet to discuss more general
issues concerning editorial policy. A
review meeting should be held at least
once a year, and a report prepared for
the ELC summarising the activities of
the Group, and highlighting issues arising
that merit wider discussion. |
| • |
In
advance of publication, matters can be
referred to the ERG by any OPEN FORUM
staff member who seeks advice on how best
to handle a sensitive publication or who
is concerned about a forthcoming publication.
Cases must be submitted in writing (on
paper or e-mail). |
| • |
In
other situations, the ERG can be called
upon at short notice by the Director,
the Head of Communications, or another
OPEN FORUM staff member, to respond to
a specific issue. |
| • |
In
both situations the Chair of the ERG (and
in their absence the Deputy Chair) will
decide whether a full meeting is needed,
or whether the issue can be dealt with
informally, or via individual consultation
with ERG members. |
| • |
Relevant
documents should be submitted to the ERG
in advance of meetings, along with an
explanation of the issues involved and
any supporting material. |
| • |
The
person referring an issue to the ERG may
appear before the Group to discuss their
written submission. The ERG may invite
any other affected parties to also attend,
and may choose to refer matters to additional
internal or external reviewers to get
their advice. The Director may also make
representations to the Group, either in
person or in writing, and may be called
upon to provide input where relevant. |
| • |
While
reviewing a particular case, the Group
will keep its internal deliberations private,
and will report its decisions to the parties
directly involved, both in person and
in writing. Decisions will be also communicated
to the Director. |
| • |
The
ERG will make its own decision on how
widely to publicise its conclusions in
a particular case, depending on the circumstances
involved. Normally decisions would be
posted on the Intranet. However, there
will be some situations where further
airing of sensitive material or decisions
would not be in the interests of OPEN
FORUM, or the parties involved, and it
will be up to the ERG to use its discretion
in such cases. |
| • |
In
extreme cases the ERG will have the authority
to conclude that a specific item cannot
be published under the OPEN FORUM logo
and attribution, or be featured on the
OPEN FORUM website. In such cases, the
authors involved are free to publish or
disseminate the material elsewhere, provided
it is not presented as reflecting the
views of OPEN FORUM. |
Peer Review Procedures
Purpose
The following Peer Review Procedures build on
the core principles of academic freedom, responsibility
and judgement outlined above, and reaffirm standard
good practice in academic publishing. They are
intended to provide a pragmatic and trustworthy
mechanism for ensuring that all OPEN FORUM outputs
are of a high quality.
The Procedures vary depending on the type of
publication or output, and are outlined below.
OPEN FORUM publications
Scope: The following rules apply to all the
main OPEN FORUM Publication Series (currently:
OPEN FORUM Working Papers, Discussion Papers,
Research Reports, Development Bibliographies,
Policy Briefings, OPEN FORUM In Focus, and the
OPEN FORUM Bulletin) and any other one-off publications
published under the OPEN FORUM name.
| • |
Prior
to submission to the Communications Team,
all manuscripts for publication must have
been peer reviewed and signed off by the
reviewers (one internal, one external),
with a view to ensuring that the work
is of sufficient academic quality. |
| • |
Reviewers
need to have an adequate background to
comment authoritatively, and should not
be directly involved in the particular
research in question. But they need not
necessarily be Fellows and could be drawn
from other Research Teams. It is up to
Research Teams to establish their own
guidelines for who is an appropriate reviewer
in particular instances. |
| • |
It
is the responsibility of the reviewer
to specify whether:
1) Minor editorial changes are necessary.
2) Minor substantive revisions are required,
in which case the reviewer would not ask
to see a revised version prior to publication.
or
3) Major substantive revisions are required,
in which case the reviewer would ask to
look at the piece again before submission.
|
| • |
Under
either scenario, the author must provide
confirmation to the Communications Team
that the proposed publication has been
peer reviewed by providing the name of
the 2 reviewers. It is the author’s
responsibility to keep a copy of the reviewers’
comments and to be able to demonstrate
if requested that they have been taken
in to account. Further details about the
process are available on the OPEN FORUM
intranet. |
| • |
On
rare occasions, a reviewer and/or the
author(s) may ask for the paper to be
looked at by the ERG. This will be primarily
to provide advice on how to engage productively
with controversial issues, rather than
being used as an additional review stage
in relation to academic quality. |
| • |
The
Communications Team has responsibility
for copy editing, layout and production
of OPEN FORUM publications and has procedures
in place for each of the various OPEN
FORUM series (see Intranet for details).
It is also responsible for checking that
appropriate disclaimers are included in
publications. |
|
|
|
|
