This month, we’re approaching the launch of direct submission to Cambridge Open Engage, our new early research platform. As well as working with researchers to build the site over the last several months, a key piece of work has been designing our policies and procedures for moderating content.
In this blog post, we’ll cover a few principles of the process we have designed.

One of the key advantages of posting research before publication is the speed it can be made public, and due to the fact that all outputs on Cambridge Open Engage will be open, it can also be accessed by a broad audience. This speed can be achieved because submissions do not go through formal peer review before they are posted – a fact that is made clear on the content landing pages on Cambridge Open Engage.

In order to ensure that the site is used for its intended purpose of sharing and gathering feedback on research, and to ensure that we comply with our ethical responsibilities, we needed to design policies and procedures that balanced the great advantages of speed and reach with the quality of the posted content.

Our moderation is designed to:

• Identify and reject content that is not scholarly, e.g. promotional content or opinion pieces.
• Identify and reject junk or offensive content.
• Identify and reject plagiaristic content.
• Identify and reject content that has clinical implications – this is one disciplinary area we will not be accepting due to the need for enhanced screening for clinical research.
• Require authors to certify that they have sought the relevant ethical approvals for research involving humans or animals.
• Ensure that the metadata the author provides accurately reflects that in the content itself, e.g. that all the authors are named.

In order to manage these checks in our goal turnaround time of 3 to 5 business days, we’ll be working with a two-tiered approach: all content will be checked by moderators, and some will be accepted or rejected at that point. Where it is hard for a moderator to make the call on a submission, we’ll also have a second level in which some submissions will be escalated to volunteer academics in particular subject areas, where further expertise is needed. We’ll also have the ability to take a submission through our in-house publishing ethics process, if there is an ethical issue like plagiarism.

Due to the nature of the early research space, we’ll also be providing support for changes once content is posted:

• Versioning, via which an author can easily post an amended version of their content. All previous versions remain accessible on the platform to retain the integrity of the scholarly record, with clear linking to the most recent version to ensure that readers know it is there.
• Retractions, which can be requested by authors or administrators, which can be used in cases where an author no longer stands by the work or in which an ethical issue is identified after content is posted. If a retraction is approved, a retraction notice is posted on the content landing page to notify readers.
• Removal. This can only happen in very rare circumstances, because it is important to retain the integrity of the scholarly record: the research might have been cited. We might consider removal, for example, if there are legal reasons that the content should not remain online.

We are looking for volunteer academic advisors in Engineering, Public Health, Law, Archaeology, Psychology, Psychiatry and Climate. Our volunteers will help us assess the subset of submissions that need focused disciplinary expertise. If you work in one of these areas and you’re interested in volunteering to help support open and early research in your discipline, email us at cambridgeopenengage@cambridge.org and we can tell you more.