Project decisions
Close to the work
Working groups should make routine project decisions with appropriate consultation and clear responsibility.
How we work / Project lifecycle
Collaboration follows the question
The Consortium provides a structure in which early-career researchers can lead, contribute, or step back according to the needs of a specific methodological project.
Lifecycle
From proposal to appropriate output
The process is deliberately conditional. A proposal may be refined, paused, declined, or developed, depending on its fit, feasibility, and the Consortium’s current capacity.
- 01
Propose a methodological question
An early-career researcher submits a project proposal with a minimum 250-word abstract explaining the problem, its importance, the proposed approach, and the contribution the work could make.
- 02
Review relevance, feasibility, and fit
The Consortium considers whether the question is methodological, whether the scope is realistic, and whether there is current capacity to support the work.
- 03
Identify collaborators and expertise
Where the project is taken forward, relevant interests and skills may be matched with the proposed work. Acceptance does not promise that every requested role can be filled.
- 04
Develop a small working group
The group may refine the question, design the study, develop the protocol, agree responsibilities, and establish practical milestones.
- 05
Base credit on actual contributions
Responsibilities and authorship are considered for each output. Consortium membership alone does not confer authorship.
- 06
Discuss progress in private working spaces
Project channels, Consortium meetings, and other agreed routes may support methodological discussion and progress updates.
- 07
Use appropriate scientific routes
Depending on the work completed, outputs may include protocols, registrations, conference contributions, papers, reporting guidance, or other suitable forms of dissemination.
Contributions and authorship
Participation is specific to the work
Being a Consortium member and being an author are separate matters.
Authorship on a manuscript or other output is based on meaningful contributions to that particular work. Roles, expectations, and credit should be discussed as a project develops and revisited when contributions change.
The Consortium may be acknowledged where its discussions or infrastructure have informed a project without meeting authorship criteria. The exact wording should be agreed for the output concerned.
Decisions and communication
Practical governance for project-led work
The Consortium uses meetings and its private Slack workspace for discussion and decisions. Where a vote is required, the agreed approach is a simple majority.
Consortium decisions
Shared when necessary
Questions affecting the wider Consortium may be discussed during meetings or through the private working forum.
Access
Reviewed, not automatic
Slack access may be sent manually only after an application has been reviewed and accepted.