NCPP Policy on publishing information
Accepted by the Core team on November 23, 2011.
This policy sets procedures and guidelines for information that is published on the public website of NCPP or is otherwise available to the public and is primarily identified with NCPP. Publicly accessible means that anyone can read or download the information without being a member of any NCPP project, or that the information appears on common search engines and therefore is presumed to be publicly available. We recognize that additional policies may be needed regarding user-created content such as blogs, wiki entries, and comment threads.
1. The NCPP Core Organizing Team has the authority within NCPP to approve the publication or release of documents, datasets, and other information with the NCPP brand.
2. The Core Team may require review by other NCPP Teams or by the Climate Science Advisory team depending on the nature of the information or where conflicts of interest are identified.
3. The Core Team may designate a separate Review team whose role is the vetting of information for the public.
4. The consensus of the Core or Review Team will be sought, but if consensus is not reached, decisions will be made by majority vote of the Core Team.
5. Documents for review submitted to a member of the core team will be introduced to all and posted for comments and subsequent final review; the final review will be accomplished in a timely manner - within 2-4 weeks of the posting for comments.
When does this policy apply?
1. Publishing ANY material on the public NCPP website. Routinely updated material may only require periodic review.
2. Creation of other public documents such as brochures, white papers, and presentations about NCPP to a public audience.
3. This does not apply to information posted directly on user project spaces using the NCPP environment.
4. Draft documents that are circulated outside of NCPP Teams should be clearly labeled “draft, do not distribute or quote” and labeled with the date or version of the draft.
1. These guidelines support NCPP’s core values.
2. NCPP supports transparency and openness of data and information. NCPP software development will take place in an open-source environment where feasible. Access to information from NCPP should only be restricted if there is a reason. Some reasons for this may include:
a. The appearance of private or personal information, including telephone numbers and e-mails.
b. The accuracy of a document or dataset that is under review.
c. Data or information obtained from a partner which was not intended to be shared publicly. For datasets we must obtain explicit permission from the original creator of the dataset to share the data.
d. The data or information is of a preliminary nature, or is in the developmental stage of a project.
3. NCPP supports scholarly and scientific integrity, including the following:
a. Review of information for accuracy and completeness. This review may come from many sources, including review by internal teams, advisory groups, panels of external experts, or the anonymous peer-review process of scientific and professional journals.
b. Citation of the sources and provenance (chain of sources) of information and data where this is reasonably discoverable.
c. Identification and disclosure of conflicts of interest.
4. NCPP supports the building of a community of practice around the development and use of climate predictions and projections. Therefore:
a. When NCPP provides information regarding other organizations, websites, and data portals, we will seek review and comment from that organization where feasible.
b. NCPP will support standards of professional conduct, including the use of language and respect for a diversity of viewpoints and approaches.
c. NCPP will serve a wide set of users. In our public presence NCPP will avoid language that may be taken out of context or misinterpreted so as to be inflammatory. This does not preclude NCPP from making strong statements when appropriate, as long as they are supported by sound science.
5. Information on the NCPP website should be identified with NCPP as an organization, not with individual team members. This does not preclude proper citation of the sources of information.
6. Information that is in the public domain, or that has been previously reviewed by other organizations should still be reviewed by NCPP. If we are relying on the evaluation of other groups, we should state this clearly.7. NCPP will monitor the public appearance of the NCPP website and other NCPP efforts to ensure that these guidelines are effective. This includes a consistent effort to manage our appearance to search engines.
Checklist for implementing NCPP guidelines on publishing information. This checklist is for gathering information regarding implementation of the policy.
Purpose, Audience, and Use of Language
yes ☐ no ☐ Is NCPP identified as the provider of this document or data?
yes ☐ no ☐ Is a disclaimer needed beyond the standard NCPP disclaimer?
yes ☐ no ☐ Does the document have a clear purpose and audience?
yes ☐ no ☐ Is this stated clearly in the document?
yes ☐ no ☐ Does this purpose fit with the strategic goals of NCPP?
yes ☐ no ☐ Has the document been reviewed for language that may be taken out of context or misinterpreted by the main user communities of NCPP?
yes ☐ no ☐ Is the document or webpage complete, with no “loose ends”?
Sources and Permissions for Information
yes ☐ no ☐ Does this contain any e-mail addresses, telephone numbers or other personal contact information?
yes ☐ no ☐ Do we have permission to publish these?
yes ☐ no ☐ Is the information and data in the public domain?
yes ☐ no ☐ Does this information meet the standards and guidelines of NCPP?
yes ☐ no ☐ Has the source of information been properly identified?
yes ☐ no ☐ Does this contain data obtained from a partner?
yes ☐ no ☐ Has permission been obtained and to share this data?
yes ☐ no ☐ Has this permission been documented?
yes ☐ no ☐ Are the primary sources properly cited ?
yes ☐ no ☐ Is any subsequent modification of the data or information properly cited or documented?
yes ☐ no ☐ Has the appropriate level of review for this document taken place?
Who has reviewed the document?
☐ Core Team
☐ Tech Team
☐ External reviewers____________________
For web pages, in addition to the above,
yes ☐ no ☐ Has the web page been properly and thoroughly tested for usability, appearance, and compatibility?
☐ Core Team members
☐ Tech Team members
☐ Partner organizations
☐ External reviewers____________________
yes ☐ no ☐ Is there a clear procedure for users to report problems and bugs?
yes ☐ no ☐ Is it clear within NCPP who is responsible for seeing that any problems are addressed?