ATT ADAFP Think Tank · Johannesburg

Section 5 of the founding concept note

Editorial independence

A research institution owned by an alliance of political parties faces one predictable objection: that its findings are political product. The objection cannot be answered by a statement of values. It is answered by rules that can be inspected — so we publish them.

Commissioning

ADAFP organs may propose research subjects. They may not determine research questions, method, findings or conclusions.

Publication

The decision to publish rests with the Director General on the advice of the Editorial Board. No political organ of ADAFP holds a veto.

Peer review

Every flagship publication is reviewed by at least two reviewers employed neither by ADAFP nor by any member organisation.

Adverse findings

Findings unfavourable to ADAFP, a member organisation or a funder are published unaltered. Amendable only by the General Assembly, and only in public.

Disclosure

Every publication carries a funding statement and a conflict-of-interest statement for each author.

Separation of voice

Publications are the work of their authors and are not political positions of ADAFP.

Data access

Where law and research ethics permit, the data underlying a published finding is released so that others may test it.

Publications issued by the Alliance Documents labelled ADAFP publication are issued by the Alliance and state ADAFP positions. They are not produced under these provisions and are not peer reviewed. The label appears on every such publication and in its record.