Strategic crisis management in the EU

We have recently finished working on this topic, answering the following question:

We have now handed over our Evidence Review Report to the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, who will use it to write their Scientific Opinion.

Why did we work on this topic?

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

What was 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 followed the steps below:

  1. Working group. We assembled 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 was 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 met regularly to prepare and discuss the content of the Evidence Review Report. The experts drafted the report over the course of several months, supported by SAPEA staff.
  4. Collaboration with Advisors. The Advisors met us regularly and participated as observers in working group meetings, while respecting the independence of SAPEA in drafting the Evidence Review Report.
  5. Expert workshop. We organised a workshop to provide an initial critique on the first complete draft of the report. Workshop participants were experts in the topic, with applied knowledge in the field. The working group considered all of the feedback from the participants when finalising the report.
  6. Peer review. The report was reviewed by three external academics in a double-blind peer review process. The peer reviewers were approved by the SAPEA board and the working group was required to address the comments they received.
  7. Design and proofreading. The final version of the report was prepared for publication, including design, layout and proofreading for language errors.
  8. Endorsement. The report was sent to the SAPEA board for endorsement. Board members also received 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 consulted with individual academies in their networks before endorsing the report. There was also an automated plagiarism check.
  9. Handover. We handed over the final report to the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors in June 2022.
  10. Publication and dissemination. We expect the report to be published in November 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