IBL Publication Policy

IBL Publication Policy
Abstract:
The IBL Publication Policy outlines policies and procedures pertaining to the planning, creation, and dissemination of scientific communications involving IBL members and/or data.
Version	1.2
Date Updated	2021-02-08
Authors	Hannah Bayer, Kenneth D. Harris, Sonja Hofer, Zachary Mainen, Alexandre Pouget, Alejandro Pan-Vazquez, Eric DeWitt, Lauren E. Wool, Anthony Zador,
Editors	Anthony Zador, Lauren E. Wool,
Working Group	Publications WG
Status	Passed
Discussed In	2019-11-01 Publications WG Minutes 2020-01-01 High Council Minutes

Section 1: Goals & Scope

The goal of this policy is to ensure:

1. Scientific communications that bear the IBL name meet the highest standards of accuracy and integrity;
2. All IBL scientists are appropriately credited for their work, ensuring that productive participation in IBL projects can be acknowledged by recruitment, promotion, and funding committees;
3. Disputes over authorship are avoided, and if they arise they are dealt with fairly, rapidly, and to the satisfaction of all IBL members.

The scope of this policy covers all public communications of scientific work for which any of the three criteria are met:

1. uses IBL data and/or resources before their public release, or
2. uses IBL data and/or resources after their public release and includes an IBL member, or
3. claims to speak on behalf of the collaboration.

All other IBL Policies referred to by this policy are defined as the GA approved versions at the time of submission to the Review Board, which is defined below.

Section 2: Publication Working Group (PWG)

The PWG will assume the following roles in overseeing IBL scientific communications:

1. Assist in the production of scientific communications for the IBL.
2. Draft, maintain a body of documentation of policies, guidelines, and advice for producing scientific publications.
3. Archive all IBL scientific communications and decision-related discussions.
4. Assign Review Boards to all draft manuscripts.
5. Arbitrate disputes involving publication and authorship.
   1. PWG members will recuse themselves from disputes involving their own lab.
   2. Conflicts that cannot be resolved by the PWG will be subject to the Conflict Resolution Policy.

Section 3: Types of Communications

Papers

A paper is a long-form narrative of findings submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and/or online repository, and assigned a DOI number. Papers may include (but are not limited to) scientific results, data releases, perspectives or recommendations, technical or logistical developments, and/or IBL infrastructure.

Types of papers

1. Platform Papers (PPs) describe technical or logistical developments, infrastructure, or the debut of important datasets from IBL’s platform projects.
2. Primary Science Papers (PSPs) describe scientific results from registered projects (Project Registration Policy).
3. All other types of papers, such as opinion pieces, white papers, protocols, or policy documents, will be subject to the same policies as PPs and PSPs. Exceptions may be requested by authors and granted by the PWG on a case-by-case basis.

Conference papers

A conference paper is a long-form narrative of findings submitted for presentation at an academic conference or meeting, published in a proceedings, and which is typically deposited in an online repository and assigned a DOI number.

Abstracts

An abstract is a summary of findings submitted for presentation at an academic conference or meeting. Abstracts may include (but are not limited to) scientific results, data releases, perspectives or recommendations, technical or logistical developments, and/or IBL infrastructure.

Posters and talks

A poster or talk is a formal presentation to a public audience. They may include (but are not limited to) scientific results, data releases, perspectives or recommendations, technical or logistical developments, and/or IBL infrastructure. This policy covers those elements of presentations sharing unpublished IBL work. Internal presentations to a lab or private discussions are not included.

Theses

Masters and doctoral theses are written long-form scientific communications, not necessarily published, that are covered by Section 1: Goals and Scope.

Section 4: Authors

Authors are those who contribute to the communication.

Author types

All communications must include ‘The International Brain Laboratory’ as an author. Optionally, communications may also include IBL members, as defined by the IBL Membership Policy, and non-IBL members, such as outside collaborators or contractors. An exception is made for theses.

Author contributions

A contribution is defined as an effort that facilitates the content, preparation, design, execution, or delivery of a communication.

1. Author contributions are listed in an appropriate place within a communication, with the consent of all authors.
2. All author contributions will be tracked and maintained over the lifetime of the communication draft, and made easily accessible.

Author lists

Author lists are determined by opting in.

1. Any IBL member may opt in at any stage of preparation of the communication.
2. To opt in, an IBL member must submit a contribution statement to the current authors.
3. Non-IBL members may be invited to opt in and submit a contribution statement.

Author order

Authors will be ordered according to their degree of contributions, or any other scheme to which all authors agree.

1. In the case of Platform Papers (PPs), ‘The International Brain Laboratory’ will be listed as first author, followed optionally by any number of named individuals.
2. For all other communications, ‘The International Brain Laboratory’ will be listed as an author in any position, alongside any number of named individuals.

Section 5: Review Boards

The Review Board is an advisory group assigned to a manuscript or conference paper to protect the reputation and represent the interests of the IBL, as well as to provide feedback on the work. Review Boards are not meant to be involved in the project or the writing of the work, but rather provide quality control before external peer review.

The Review Board is responsible for raising any objections about the work that could harm the collaboration, which authors must resolve. Additionally, it may provide feedback on the work that authors may optionally incorporate.

1. A Review Board review is mandatory for all manuscripts and conference papers.
2. Authors select their Review Boards (notifying the PWG) at the time the authors announce their paper plan (manuscripts) or abstract (conference papers).
3. Review Boards should comprise a minimum of 2 PIs. PIs can sit on multiple Review Boards simultaneously.
4. If possible, coauthors should not be on the Review Board. If a member of a Review Board becomes a coauthor, then they should be replaced with a new member.
5. Once authors announce the work to the Review Board, it will complete a review of the work within two days (conference paper abstracts) or two weeks (full conference papers or manuscripts).
6. For work that requires substantial revision before resubmission, the Review Board will complete a review of the revised work within two weeks of the authors’ announcement that the revision is completed.
7. Review Board reviews should be sent to both authors and the PWG, and should be archived in the manuscript directory/repository.

Section 6: Preparing papers

Critical checkpoints

1. Authors announce a paper plan/scope to the entire IBL, before any writing.
2. Authors select a Review Board to the paper plan/scope and notify the PWG.
3. Authors announce a shared directory/repository where the manuscript is written, and a discussion forum where the manuscript is discussed.
4. Authors announce a final manuscript draft to both (a) the Review Board and (b) the entire IBL.
5. The Review Board delivers a review within two weeks, even if it has no objections or feedback (for the rest of the IBL, authors may proceed after two weeks if no feedback or objections).
6. Authors check that data are cleared for release.
7. Authors check that code is ready for release.
8. Authors deposit the manuscript on a preprint server.
9. Authors submit the manuscript for peer review.
10. Authors announce the receipt of peer reviews to the entire IBL and archive them in the shared directory/repository.
11. Authors announce a revised manuscript to both (a) the Review Board and (b) the entire IBL.
12. The Review Board delivers a review within two weeks, even if it has no objections or feedback (for the rest of the IBL, authors may proceed after two weeks if no feedback or objections).
13. Authors resubmit the paper.

Submission

1. Manuscripts may not be deposited publicly or submitted for peer review until
   1. they have received a review from their Review Board,
   2. any objections have been resolved, and
   3. data have been cleared for release in adherence to the Data Release Policy.
2. All manuscripts will be deposited on a preprint server prior to or at the time of submission for peer review.
3. All manuscript submissions will adhere to the open-access policies required by IBL funding bodies.

Data release

All data and code associated with a manuscript must be released publicly at the time of publication.

If a manuscript uses data from platform projects (see Alyx User Guide), those data must be released before the manuscript is deposited publicly or submitted for peer review.

All data and code published will adhere to the IBL Data Release Policy and the IBL Reproducibility Policy.

Section 7: Preparing conference papers

Critical checkpoints

1. Authors announce a draft abstract to the entire IBL, as well as a shared directory/repository where the paper is written.
2. Authors select a Review Board and notify the PWG.
3. Authors provide the abstract, along with a rough draft or detailed outline for the paper, to the Review Board.
4. The Review Board provides objections on the abstract within two business days (for the rest of the IBL, authors may proceed after two business days if no feedback or objections).
5. Authors check that data are cleared for release.
6. Authors submit the abstract and the full conference paper.
7. Authors announce the submitted full conference paper to the (a) Review Board and (b) the entire IBL.
8. The Review Board delivers a review on the paper within two weeks, even if it has no objections or feedback (for the rest of the IBL, authors may proceed after two weeks if no feedback or objections). Extensions can be approved by PWG on a case-by-case basis.

Submission

1. Conference papers cannot be submitted until any objections have been resolved.
2. Conference papers and abstracts must be deposited in a shared directory/repository.
3. Conference paper submissions will adhere to the open-access policies required by IBL funding bodies.

Data release

All data and code associated with a conference paper must be released publicly at the time of publication.

If a conference paper uses data from platform projects (see Alyx User Guide), those data must be released before the conference paper is deposited publicly or submitted for peer review.

All data and code published will adhere to the IBL Data Release Policy and the IBL Reproducibility Policy.

Section 8: Preparing abstracts

Critical checkpoints

1. Authors announce draft abstract to the entire IBL.
2. IBL members provide objections and feedback within two business days.
3. Authors submit the abstract.

Submission

1. Abstracts cannot be submitted until any objections have been resolved.
2. Final abstracts must be deposited in a shared directory/repository.
3. Abstract submissions will adhere to the open-access policies required by IBL funding bodies.

Data release

Data and code associated with abstracts do not need to be released.

Section 9: Preparing posters and talks

Critical checkpoints

1. Authors announce a draft poster/slide deck to the entire IBL.
2. IBL members provide objections and feedback within two business days.

Presentation

1. Only slides and poster sections involving IBL work need to be shared in advance.
2. Posters and talks cannot be presented until any objections have been resolved.
3. Final posters/slide decks must be deposited in a shared directory/repository.
4. Posters and talks will adhere to the open-access policies required by IBL funding bodies.

Data release

Data and code associated with posters or talks do not need to be released.

Section 10: Preparing dissertations

Critical checkpoints

1. Authors announce a draft thesis to the entire IBL.
2. IBL members provide objections and feedback within two weeks.

Submission

1. Dissertations cannot be submitted until any objections have been resolved.
2. In lieu of authorship, dissertations should acknowledge ‘The International Brain Laboratory’ and other contributions of IBL members.

Data release

Data and code associated with dissertations do not need to be released.

Section 11: Corrigenda & Retractions

Authors must notify the PWG about any corrigenda or retractions issued for published scientific communications.

Section 12: Feedback, Objections, & Conflicts

Feedback (such as comments, recommendations, or concerns) on scientific communications should be sent to the authors directly, who may address them at their discretion.

An objection is defined in the IBL Charter on Governance as a well-reasoned argument on why an action will impede the goals of the organization. Objections regarding scientific communications must be raised to both the authors and the PWG, and they must be resolved before proceeding. Objections must be:

1. well reasoned,
2. understandable to all, and
3. demonstrate that action would impede the goals of the collaboration.

Any conflicts that arise regarding scientific communications will adhere to the IBL Conflict Resolution Policy, with the PWG as the relevant working group.

Section 13: Other Cases

Any publication matter not explicitly covered by this policy should be referred to the PWG for review.

Section 14: Best Practices & Style Guide

This document defines policy only. For guidelines and recommendations on writing, credit assignment, coauthors, and more, please refer to the Best Practices & Guidelines.

Section 15: References

• Project Registration Policy
• Membership Policy
• Data Release Policy
• Reproducibility Policy
• IBL Charter on Governance
• Conflict Resolution Policy
• Alyx User Guide
• Wellcome Open Access Policy
• Best Practices & Guidelines