Ethics and COPE policy.

Ethics and COPE policy on Academy Capability, published by Risk Academy. Learning and workforce capability: competencies, completions, practicum outcomes and gaps, in aggregate only.

Read the policy Contribute
01Who it is for

What this page does.

How the desk handles conflicts of interest, independence, complaints, misconduct, appeals, corrections and retractions. The desk aligns its practice with the COPE Core Practices; this is a commitment, not a claim of membership. Authors, reviewers, editors and readers who need to know how a concern is raised and decided.

  1. Conflicts declared before anyone reads or decides
  2. Complaints logged, and handled by the managing editor
  3. Appeals a panel with no earlier involvement
  4. Decisions taken by the board in public, with reasons
Your role here

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
02Ethics

Read the policy.

The ethics tool of Academy Capability follows. The capability of the workforce that manages the risks in scope: the competencies needed, what learning and practicum show, and where the gaps are.

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).

Ethics and COPE policy

Alignment

We align our practice with the COPE Core Practices and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. This is a commitment. It is not a claim of membership.

Conflicts of interest

Reviewers declare before they read. Editors and board members step out of any submission they have a conflict with. Authors declare funding and relationships.

Independence

Community votes set topics and calls only. Sponsors and members never see or influence a decision on a submission.

Complaints and misconduct

Send complaints to the managing editor. Each one is logged. Allegations of misconduct follow the COPE flowcharts.

Appeals

You may appeal within 30 days. A panel with no earlier involvement decides, in public, with reasons.

Corrections, concerns and retractions

The editorial board decides each one in public. A correction is a new version with a notice. An expression of concern is allowed. A retraction keeps the text readable with a marker.

Your data

Review records are personal data. You may ask for an export or for erasure. After erasure the review text stays for the audit record with your identity detached.

Risk Academy

Courses · practice · credentials

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

Risk Academy 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.

Corrections policy

Licence

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

Privacy choices