Understanding the Checklist
Version of 3 March 2025; CC BY-SA 4.0.
Last updated
Version of 3 March 2025; CC BY-SA 4.0.
Last updated
The Checklist is available as a downloadable spreadsheet (link it to OSF DOI; CC BY-SA 4.0). Where relevant, the text in the spreadsheet is hyperlinked to specific sections in this Guidance page to provide definitions and help with the implementation of the checks.
You can use the spreadsheet as tool to a) assess manuscript compliance, as described in the section below, or b) if you have existing internal tools or processes, ensure that the elements in the Checklist are included or added.
The Checklist includes 13 elements set against a consensus workflow and role set. In the spreadsheet, these elements are categorised in two tabs, as Manuscript Elements and Digital Objects Elements.
This section outlines how the Checklist can be used as a practical tool to assess manuscript compliance, as it also includes a way for you to capture the result (as Pass, Fail, or N/A).
Open access is the practice of providing online access to scientific information that is free of charge and reusable to the user. This includes both peer-reviewed publications and data underlying publications, or other datasets. Under Horizon Europe, researchers are not obliged to publish their results in publications, however if they choose to do so, it should be in open access.
Core elements must be assessed for all manuscripts that wish to comply with the Handbook, and must either Pass or be N/A (not applicable).
A specialised element indicates that it is not relevant for certain manuscripts or journals; however, a pass or n/a is still required in order to consider the manuscript compliant.
Within the Checklist, consideration levels are shown in column E. Within the Flowchart, core consideration levels are shown with a solid line around the element diamond, and specialised consideration levels with a dotted line.
An element that passes its check is is assigned a Pass status, while a failing element is shown with a Fail value; if the element is not applicable to your particular journal workflow, you may use N/A (not applicable). In one case, you are instead asked to provide a number; this is a helper element that is required for the correct functioning of the Checklist.
Within the Checklist, statuses may be selected in column G. Within the Flowchart, decision arrows are marked with all possible statuses, and you should follow the direction of the arrow that corresponds to the status for the manuscript you are assessing.
In addition to each Checklist element (i.e. the element number and name, the consensus role and workflow position), there are , links to specific guidance sections and a space for assessors to provide values, evaluation dates and notes.
When you are ready to begin, download and make a copy of the Checklist and change its filename to reflect the checks you are completing (e.g. label it in a way that identifies the manuscript being assessed). Navigate to the Manuscript Elements tab, where you will be checking the first three elements; these apply to the manuscript as a whole. Once you have completed the Manuscript Elements tab, create copies of the Digital Object Elements tab equal to the value you have provided for . You may find it easiest if you rename each Digital Object Element tab in a way that includes a reference to both the availability statement the is listed within as well as a short descriptive name for the digital object, e.g. 'DAS - OSF OSF.IO/T765V.' As you progress through each Element tab, you must set a using the drop-down menu in column G, and you may optionally provide the date and rationale for your decision. Repeat the process of setting a status and recording the date and rationale until you have done so for all items. Depending on what is required within your journal submission workflow based on the outcome of these checks, you can then copy these elements another document, print them to PDF, or whatever is most helpful for you. Please note that this Checklist is intended to be an idealised consensus document. This means that, as you work through the Checklist elements, each element should be reviewed by you in the context of your particular journal/publisher requirements. Element instructions often contain wording similar to "appropriate for your journal" or "according to your journal guidelines"; this means that such checks may rely on internal journal guidance as well as the Guidance for this Handbook to contextualise the check for your particular requirements.
Within this Handbook, digital objects are the smallest citable online object (this generally, but not always, means that it has an unique, persistent identifier) that can be referenced in a manuscript. Some examples are: datasets, software/code, materials, methods/protocols, digitised versions of physical objects (e.g. photographs or 3d scans), and may even include (NTROs).
While a digital object is often a single file (e.g. a spreadsheet with a digital object), it can also act as a container for multiple files (e.g. an digital object that allows a complex structure of files of varying types within it). When acting as such a container, a digital object may be called by various names e.g. 'project' within the OSF terminology.
The Handbook uses this definition to help you understand that when checklist elements such as use 'open', it asking if the digital object is available free of charge and is accessible in a way that allows re-use.
Elements with a core consideration level have been identified by as applicable across all types of digital objects, irrespective of research domain (e.g. all authors should anonymise under the right conditions, see ). To have a compliant manuscript, any failure of a core check must be followed-up with the authors or relevant roles within the journal and ultimately gain a pass or n/a .
Elements with an specialised consideration level are applicable only to a subset of the research areas or manuscripts (e.g. domain-specific repositories are not relevant to all journals or indeed all types of digital objects, see ). Failure of these elements will only occur when your journal mandates these specialised checks; otherwise the status should be recorded as not applicable (N/A). As such, failures of specialised elements must still be followed-up with the authors or relevant roles within the journal and ultimately gain a pass or n/a .
