Purpose and Scope
Most research carries no unusual dissemination risk. This policy applies to the small category of submissions whose methods, materials, data or conclusions could foreseeably be misapplied to cause serious harm to people, animals, agriculture, the environment or critical infrastructure — including dual-use research of concern, work with dangerous pathogens or toxins, enhancement of transmissibility or virulence, and safety-sensitive chemical, radiological, cyber-physical or other technical detail that would materially assist the creation of harm.
Author and Journal Obligations at Submission
Authors shall disclose at submission any biosafety, biosecurity, dual-use or other risk review to which the work was subject, the approving body, and any restriction imposed on publication. Authors shall confirm compliance with applicable containment, licensing and export or legal restrictions. Journals shall screen for the categories above at initial assessment and shall route identified submissions to the assessment process below rather than through ordinary handling alone.
Assessment
Where a risk is identified, the editor shall obtain the assessment necessary to decide responsibly, which may include consultation with biosafety, biosecurity, clinical, legal or subject-matter specialists under confidentiality (A5), and shall escalate to LMI where the risk is material, the journal lacks the expertise required, or a decision may have consequences beyond the journal. LMI shall make available or arrange appropriate specialist input. The assessment shall weigh, and shall be documented as weighing:
- the scientific and public-health benefit of publication, including the value of transparency and reproducibility;
- the foreseeable harm if the information were misused, considering how much genuine capability publication would add beyond what is already available;
- applicable legal, regulatory and ethical obligations, including any conditions imposed by an approving body;
- whether mitigation would allow responsible publication — for example withholding specific protocols, sequences, quantities or parameters, publishing detail under controlled access, or referring readers to a regulated source.
Decision
Where responsible dissemination can be achieved, publication proceeds, with mitigation and any redaction disclosed to readers so that the record is transparent about what has been withheld and why. Where it cannot, the journal may decline publication; the decision shall be explained to the authors, recorded with its reasoning, and taken by identified editorial authority under A3. LMI’s role is to provide specialist, legal, security and operational support. Where a binding legal prohibition or an immediate and serious platform-level safety obligation prevents dissemination, LMI may restrict publication only to the minimum extent necessary, with the basis documented, conflict-free review where appropriate, and the greatest transparency law and safety permit. Publisher discomfort, political preference or reputational concern is never such an obligation.
Safeguard Against Misuse of This Policy
This policy shall not be used to suppress research because its findings are controversial, politically or institutionally uncomfortable, commercially inconvenient, or critical of the publisher, a sponsor or an institution. Publisher or political discomfort is not a dual-use justification (A3). A decision under this policy requires an identified, foreseeable and serious risk of harm, documented reasoning, and — where a party believes the policy has been misapplied — availability of escalation under A4.
Post-Publication
Where a risk is identified only after publication, the matter shall be assessed under this policy and any record action taken under G2; removal is reserved for the exceptional circumstances G2 defines.
Standards and Guidance
Informed by WHO guidance on dual-use research of concern and responsible life-sciences research, and the COPE Core Practices.