Transparency & Research Integrity
A public research platform should make it possible to understand not only what it says, but how it reached its conclusions.
Research independence
PPRI publications should identify evidence and reasoning separately from advocacy. The institute may study proposals for new provinces, stronger local government or other reforms without treating any one institutional model as predetermined by the research process.
Funding disclosure
PPRI should disclose material institutional funding sources and research sponsorships when they exist. A future funding register should identify the funder, relevant project and period of support, subject to lawful privacy and contractual constraints.
Conflicts of interest
Authors and contributors should disclose relevant financial, institutional or professional interests that could reasonably be perceived as material to a publication.
Corrections policy
Corrections should be visible and proportionate to the error. A typo may receive a minor correction note; a changed statistic, source or conclusion should receive a substantive note and, where appropriate, an updated version history.
Publication review
Before publication, substantive papers should receive a source check, methodological review and editorial review. The website can identify whether a document is a draft, working paper, consultation version or final publication.
What PPRI does not claim
- Website traffic is not treated as public opinion.
- Voluntary survey responses are not automatically representative.
- A scenario map is not an official boundary.
- A research conclusion is not a government decision.
- Historical statistics are not presented as current estimates without a date.