Contribution begins with purpose, authorship, consent and a clear use.

The ethics baseline

Every proposed dialogue, study, interview, case account, creative work, dataset or publication should begin with a documented purpose and a responsible owner. The owner should determine the relevant ethical, institutional, professional, safeguarding, information and rights requirements before inviting a contribution.

The route should be proportionate to the activity. A public article does not need the same process as research involving people, and a recorded interview does not become low risk merely because it is informal. Where external ethics review, institutional approval or another competent decision is required, the Programme cannot replace it.

Participation and consent

Consent, where it is the appropriate basis, should relate to a specific activity and understandable use. A person should know whether participation is optional, whether recording will occur, which parts may be quoted or published, how identity will be handled, what withdrawal can and cannot change and whom to contact.

Agreement to speak is not automatically agreement to be recorded. Agreement to research is not automatically agreement to public identification. Agreement to one use does not authorise every later use. Each material use needs a traceable basis.

Children and heightened protection

If an activity may involve children or others requiring heightened protection, the team must decide that scope explicitly before recruitment or collection. The design should consider best interests, evolving capacities, understandable information, appropriate permission and assent, safeguarding, confidentiality limits, power imbalance and the possibility that participation itself creates risk. UNICEF guidance emphasises rights-respecting, reflective research practice and child-centred data governance.⁷

No child-focused or sensitive activity should become active through generic page copy. It requires a pathway-specific ethics and safeguarding decision, trained responsible roles and a tested response route.

Authorship, contribution and acknowledgement

Before work begins, the parties should understand how authorship, editorial contribution, acknowledgement, translation, adaptation and institutional affiliation will be decided. Authorship should reflect accountable intellectual contribution, not prestige or access. A contributor should be able to see the approved attribution form and any material editorial change affecting meaning.

Where a contribution cannot be publicly attributed, the private record should still preserve provenance and the authorised reason for the chosen public treatment.

Rights and permitted use

The content record should identify who owns or controls the submitted material, what rights are granted, the permitted formats and languages, the duration, any restrictions, the treatment of third-party material and the route for correction or a future request. A submission should not demand broader rights than the stated purpose reasonably requires.

Rights to text do not automatically include rights to a person’s image, voice, private information, data, institutional mark or third-party source. Each must be addressed appropriately.

Editorial independence and material interests

Editors and reviewers should be able to question a claim, require evidence, narrow wording, disclose uncertainty or decline publication. A contributor’s status should not exempt the work from review.

Relevant interests, roles and relationships should be disclosed to the responsible reviewer. Disclosure does not automatically resolve a conflict; the control may require recusal, an additional review, a limitation notice or a decision not to proceed.

Correction, versioning and withdrawal

Every public knowledge object should have a stable identity, version, publication date, material-change record and correction route. A correction should distinguish a minor editorial change from a substantive change to data, interpretation, authorship or conclusion.

Withdrawal may be necessary for rights, safety, integrity or other justified reasons. The public treatment should preserve enough information to explain the status without republishing protected content or falsely suggesting that the object never existed.

Expression of interest — content for a future authorised route

When activated, the route should ask only for the minimum information needed to decide whether a further conversation is appropriate:

• the person’s or organisation’s verified name at the appropriate stage;
• a safe contact route;
• the type of contribution being proposed;
• the question or public purpose;
• relevant experience or source material;
• any known institutional, ethics, rights or safeguarding requirement;
• the languages and accessible format needed;
• material interests that may affect review.

The confirmation must say: “We have received your expression of interest for review. This receipt does not confirm appointment, selection, publication, research participation or a future response beyond the stated process.”

Empty and disabled states

Interest route disabled

Programme services are introduced in defined phases. Before any public action becomes available, its responsible entity, authority, information safeguards, security controls and support route are confirmed and presented alongside it.

Submission received — future active-state copy

Programme services are introduced in defined phases. Before any public action becomes available, its responsible entity, authority, information safeguards, security controls and support route are confirmed and presented alongside it.

Not progressed

Programme services are introduced in defined phases. Before any public action becomes available, its responsible entity, authority, information safeguards, security controls and support route are confirmed and presented alongside it.

Closing actions

No submission action until the route is approved Explore the evidence approach