17  Publishing guidelines

Warning

🚧 This website and documentation is still in very active development and evolving quickly, so content could undergo substantial changes at any time 🚧

The purpose of this document is to establish an internal guideline for publications and authorship based on the DP-Next project and related subprojects. It also outlines the decision-making processes in relation to publications and the responsibilities of authors and the DP-Next Steering Committee in facilitating an optimal publication strategy and an honest and transparent authorship policy.

17.1 Mindset and overall process

According to the original project description to the Novo Nordisk Foundation (https://dp-next.github.io/) and Section 12 of the collaboration agreement, DP-Next aims to work, collaborate, and publish following the principles of open and reproducible science. This document outlines in more detail how we apply these principles, and has the status of guideline. In case of any discrepancy or conflict between this guideline and the collaboration agreement, the text of the collaboration agreement has precedence. If there are any substantial deviations from this guideline due to external/unforeseen circumstances, the authors should request approval to proceed from the Steering Committee, justifying the deviations.

According to the collaboration agreement the Steering Committee is charged with outlining and implementing the project’s publication strategy. The main aims of this strategy are:

  • To jointly publish positive, negative, and inconclusive results in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

  • To work according to open and reproducible research practices.

The sections below outline how these principles will be implemented in practice; first at a general level and then including operational details.

17.1.1 Open and reproducible practices

All publications/outputs should be published as Open Access publications, with a strong preference for:

  • The Green Open Access format (meaning to publish as a pre-print in an open archive such as Zenodo or bioRxiv).
  • Publication agreements that do not require the transfer of copyright to publishers.
  • Publication under a Creative Commons CC-BY license.

All publications should be accompanied by the following:

  • A synopsis of the proposed publication, including a defined aim/hypothesis, general methodological approach, required data, expected timeline, and proposed author list. This synopsis is only for internal use, and should be approved by the Steering Committee before any work on a specific analysis/paper starts (see below).
  • A detailed analysis protocol, published on an online repository such as Zenodo or OpenAIRE to obtain a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and clearly establish a clear temporal sequence between definition of hypotheses/analytic approaches and analysis of data.
  • A publicly accessible repository on GitHub containing the detailed analytical code that generates the tables, graphs, and figures included in the manuscript, as well as the full text of the manuscript, abstracts submitted to conferences and slides/posters that present the work, the synopsis and the protocol.
  • Preprints of substantial versions of the manuscript on online pre-print servers such as Zenodo, bioRxiv, arXiv, or medRxiv.

17.1.2 General authorship practices

Authorship of DP-Next publications should reflect a substantial, direct contribution to the work presented in each paper. We aim to reflect the Vancouver Guidelines (https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf) (ICMJE) for authorship, expanding on them to reflect non-traditional research contributions. Non-traditional research contributions are activities that contribute in a clear way to the creation of the publication, such as improving data quality, developing software, or improving analysis code.

Author lists and orders will be established at the stage of definition of the synopsis / analysis protocol. All who have contributed to DP-Next who also qualify for co-authorship should be given the chance to become co-author on papers relating to data that they have helped collect or analyse. The Steering Committee will help to facilitate this by keeping an up to date list of submitted synopses so that those interested in contributing to the publication and being a co-author can signal their interest. Substantial contributions are a requirement for co-authorships. All potential co-authors must be involved early in the process of preparing the publications, ideally at the stage of the synopsis submission. In addition to the named authors, all papers should by default include the group authorship of ‘on behalf of the DP-Next investigators’, linking to the current list of DP-Next investigators

Author lists and orders may be amended after synopsis approval by consensus among the authors or by the Steering Committee if the factual contributions differ from those foreseen initially.

If disagreements about authorship cannot be resolved by consensus within the author group, the Steering Committee will make a decision. Regardless of named authors, publications will include detailed contributor lists along with described contributions as per the CRediT roles, either directly in the paper, as a supplemental appendix, or described on an external publicly accessible document. The Steering Committee will ensure that such a document is publicly accessible and up to date. Furthermore, papers must include an acknowledgment to external parties such as funders, institutions, participants, and service providers that have contributed to the specific work presented in each paper. The Steering Committee will maintain an updated acknowledgment statement for the DP-Next project.

17.2 Practical implementation

17.2.1 Initiating a research project

We expect that the initiative for new publications based on DP-Next data will primarily be taken by DP-Next investigators. However, we also welcome collaborative publication initiatives by external investigators (i.e. those who are not part of the DP-Next team). Publication initiatives led by external investigators must include at least one DP-Next co-author to ensure continuity and handling and reporting according to our guidelines. Publication initiatives can be stand-alone or part of a wider protocol, such as a PhD or post-doc protocol. The same steps outlined below for manuscripts apply if DP-Next results are to be included in a PhD thesis.

17.2.2 Steps to follow during the publication life cycle

The requirements for preparing a DP-Next publication apply to both internal and external researchers and should follow these steps:

  1. Creation of a publicly accessible repository specifically for each publication on GitHub. The repository must be placed under the DP-Next organization, be named according to the naming guide and use our template. This repository will contain the various ‘sub-products’ described below as separate ‘chapters’.

  2. Synopsis preparation and approval from the Steering Committee. This should take place as early as possible, and should be completed before any part of the analysis or writing process starts. The synopsis should be brief (around 1 page) and be written inside the GitHub repository created under 1, according to the template. It should contain:

    • A link to the GitHub repository

    • The title

    • The proposed author list, with roles

    • A clear hypothesis, with a brief background if needed

    • The required DP-Next data

    • A general outline of the analytical approach

    • A proposed timeline for the work, including proposed conference presentations and proposed target journals

    • Connection to specific DP-Next WP aims, PhD/postdoc protocols and other prior or ongoing projects

    • A table to track the status of the project with dates as it progresses through the cycle

Once the synopsis is completed, an approval request should be submitted to the Steering Committee by filing an ‘issue’ in the GitHub wp1-management project, with reference to the publication’s GitHub repository. The Steering Committee will review and discuss requests within the GitHub environment or at their regular meetings, and may provide comments and ask for changes before approval. The synopsis is an internal management document and does not need to be published on Zenodo.

  1. For investigators not covered by the DP-Next agreements (by institutional affiliation to one of the Steno Diabetes Centres), a separate data agreement must be signed if they require data access. This agreement must be in place before any data access can be given.

  2. Protocol writing. It is expected that the first output from each publication will be an analysis protocol. Investigators should follow these steps:

    • Draft a detailed analysis protocol in the publication’s GitHub repository that describes the following points:
      • The title
      • Authors
      • Background and hypothesis
      • Description of the data that will be used specifically for this publication
      • Description of the specific data analysis plan for this publication
    • Once there is a solid version, the protocol should be published on an online repository such as Zenodo or OpenAIRE to obtain a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and clearly establish a clear temporal sequence between definition of hypotheses/analytic approaches and analysis of data.
    • If new versions of the protocol are generated as the project advances, updates should also be pushed to Zenodo / OpenAIRE. This can be set up automatically using the Seedcase template.
    • A stable version of the protocol may also be published as a preprint on online preprint servers such as arXiv or medRxiv.

  3. Work on the data analysis. Depending on the data used, this work will take place on a local secure server or on Denmark Statistics Servers. Please follow the guides on the use of Git / GitHub for data analysis in these two environments, making sure that the analytical code is saved in the project’s GitHub repository.

  4. Preparation of a conference abstract, interim / preliminary results / progress reports / presentations / slides. As the project progresses, various interim results and materials are likely to be produced. As far as possible, these should also be managed as separate ‘chapters’ of the project’s GitHub repository.

  5. Preparation of the manuscript. This should also take place as a ‘chapter’ in the project’s GitHub repository and should be clearly linked to the annotated detailed analytical code that generated the tables, graphs and figures included in the manuscript. Stable versions of the manuscript should be published as a preprint on online preprint servers such as arXiv or medRxiv.

  6. Internal approval and first submission. When a substantial version of the manuscript / a conference abstract is ready for submission, the authors should request approval for submission from the Steering Committee by filing an ‘issue’ in the GitHub wp1-management project, with reference to the publication’s GitHub repository. This should be done at least two weeks before the intended submission date / deadline. The Steering Committee will provide their agreement / disagreement as soon as possible and within two weeks. If the Steering Committee does not respond within two weeks, this is regarded as agreement and the authors may proceed with submission. The Steering Committee may nominate some of its members to lead publication reviews/approvals on behalf of the full committee. The Steering Committee will only disagree with the submission of a paper or abstract at this stage if it is felt to be too premature, is seen as repetition of previously published work or if substantial parts of the process described in this guideline have not been followed (e.g. no GitHub repository, no approved synopsis, no protocol).

  7. Updates and acceptance. Throughout the project life cycle (also after the manuscript / conference abstract is submitted), the authors should keep the status table in the synopsis up to date to reflect (where relevant):

    • Major milestones in analysis / writing / internal review, linked to major versions.

    • Steering Committee approval

    • First submission

    • Rejections / resubmission

    • Revisions / resubmission

    • Acceptance

  8. Publication. The authors should send a copy of the full text of a publication and/or a link to the final materials to the Steering Committee and report/log the activity on the relevant academic output tracking platform.

17.2.3 Other forms of dissemination

Other forms of dissemination include: keynotes, invited talks, press releases, media appearances, podcasts, posts on social media or outreach activities. In general, dissemination activities must never interfere with or weaken the opportunities for academic publication of the study results.

17.2.3.1 Dissemination of new results

The following applies if the dissemination contains any ‘new results’ from DP-Next. ‘New results’ refers to any results that have not yet been definitively published in a peer-reviewed journal. Results included in a conference abstract/presentation, preprint or GitHub repository are still considered new results until they are definitively published.

  • Inclusion of preliminary or new results in lectures/seminars being given outside the research teams directly involved in DP-Next, should be done with care. Researchers wishing to present preliminary or new results in small academic circles should notify the Steering Committee before giving the presentation, by raising an issue in the project’s GitHub.

  • Dissemination of new results through media or outreach activities can only take place after the academic dissemination in the form of published conference abstracts or presentations. In the case of a press release issued in connection with a conference, the dissemination can be prepared ahead of time under a time embargo that coincides with the academic presentation of results.

  • Before issuing any press release or disseminating any new results from DP-Next, researchers should inform the Steering Committee.

  • For press releases the notification should occur as early as possible, and if there is less than 72 hours for approval, e-mail can be followed up with text message or phone call to the PI or other members of the Steering Committee.

  • After the dissemination activity, the researcher should send a copy or link to the final materials to the Steering Committee and report/log the activity on the project’s GitHub as well as the relevant academic output tracking platform.

17.2.3.2 Dissemination of published results / general DP-Next dissemination

If a dissemination activity only covers general information about DP-Next or definitively published results (i.e. not including preliminary results, preprints, conference abstracts or GitHub content), prior approval by the Steering Committee is not required. It is highly appreciated if the researcher keeps the Steering Committee and the relevant members of the team updated on any major dissemination activities. The researcher should still send a copy or link to the final materials to the Steering Committee and report/log the activity on the project’s GitHub as well as on the relevant academic output tracking platform.

17.2.4 Steering Committee

The current members of the Steering Committee are listed on the DP-Next website.

17.2.5 Acknowledgement Statement

Any publication, dissemination or communication stemming from the DP-Next project should mention the following acknowledgment statements (version 14-03-2025).

For all publications:

“The DP-Next project was funded by a Steno National Collaborative Grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (Grant number NNF24OC008916). Additional funding was obtained from all Steno Diabetes Centers.”

Additionally for publications involving data collected through OPEN (The electronic questionnaires used in WP3):

“Electronic questionnaires were distributed using OPEN, Open Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Region of Southern Denmark (open.rsyd.dk)”.