Strategic crisis management in the EU

We are currently working on this topic, answering the following question:

Why are we working on this topic?

As part of the Scientific Advice Mechanism, we have been asked to support the European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors in preparing advice on this topic. The evidence we gather will inform their Scientific Opinion.

What is the process for working on this topic?

To ensure we deliver evidence of the highest standard in a transparent way, our work is guided by a set of principles and procedures which can be found in our Quality Assurance Guidelines.

We will follow the steps below:

  1. Working group. We will assemble an interdisciplinary working group of Europe’s top independent experts. For full details of how this process works, see How we find our experts.
  2. Systematic literature reviews. The working group’s work will be informed by systematic literature reviews, to identify relevant published scientific evidence, identify knowledge gaps and uncertainties and to reduce the risk of bias in the working group.
  3. Working group meetings. The working group will meet regularly to prepare and discuss the content of the Evidence Review Report. The experts will draft the report over the course of several months, supported by SAPEA staff.
  4. Collaboration with Advisors. The Advisors will meet us regularly and participate as observers in working group meetings, while respecting the independence of SAPEA in drafting the Evidence Review Report.
  5. Expert workshop. We will organise a workshop to provide an initial critique on the first complete draft of the report. Workshop participants will be experts in the topic, ideally with applied knowledge in the field. The working group will consider all of the feedback from the participants when finalising the report.
  6. Peer review. The report will be reviewed by at least three peer reviewers in a blind review process. The peer reviewers will be approved by the SAPEA board and the working group will be required to address any comments they receive.
  7. Endorsement. The report will be sent to the SAPEA board for endorsement. Board members will also receive a quality assurance checklist, a copy of all comments from peer reviewers, and an explanation of how the working group addressed the comments. Board members will usually consult with individual academies in their networks before endorsing the report. There will also be an automated plagiarism check.
  8. Design and proofreading. The final version of the report will be prepared for publication, including design, layout and proofreading for language errors.
  9. Publication and dissemination. We expect the final report to be published in summer 2022, alongside the Advisors’ Scientific Opinion. We will make the report freely available, following principles of open access and open science, and communicate its contents widely.

to our newsletter