NHS Research SDE Network Acknowledgements and Publications Policy (SNAPPy)

This policy sets out the means for acknowledging contributions to research projects using NHS data run in, facilitated by or supported by the NHS Research Secure Data Environment (SDE) Network in England, also referred to as 'the Network'. This is to support tracking of research outputs while facilitating recognition of efforts.

The primary audience is researchers planning and delivering projects, with secondary audiences of Network staff supporting projects and central governance teams, supported by the checklist in Appendix A.

This policy applies to all research outputs and research-based outputs arising from projects using or facilitated by the Network, particularly peer reviewed papers (full and pre-prints), but also including:

• conference abstracts
• presentations and posters
• reports
• any associated media activities (press releases)

Researchers must follow these principles when developing:

• publicity materials relating to current or future capabilities of, or research being supported, by the Network (including case studies, press releases, blog, websites)
• participant-facing materials (results summaries, consent forms)
• grant applications
• research protocols
• statistical analysis plans
• data management plans

It also applies when talking more generally about an SDE and its work.

These principles guide research teams on how to acknowledge and represent the Network and its contributing SDEs in research outputs.

Transparency and trust — Every project should clearly acknowledge the Network and the specific SDEs involved. Such transparency is expected by the public. Clear acknowledgement builds trust with the public, funders and the research community, and supports the principle that NHS data is being used responsibly and securely.

Fair credit and recognition of meaningful contribution — This policy promotes the recognition of work done at SDEs to enable new research. This helps to demonstrate value to funders.

Consistency across outputs — Consistent terminology helps researchers in writing and allows the Network to more easily track outputs and report on activities.

Researcher-aimed guidance — Research outputs will be led by research teams who may be occasional users of the Network. Therefore guidance is aimed to be comprehensive.

Open science and accessibility — Research outputs should be published as open access wherever possible. Research papers should include a data sharing statement and reference persistent identifiers, such as project identifiers (IDs) or digital object identifier (DOI) to enable reproducibility and future discoverability.

Data papers — If new data assets are developed for future use in the Network, the publication of short, descriptive data papers is required, and relevant SDE staff and collaborators must be co-authors.

Table 1 sets out the minimum information to be included in research outputs when working with SDEs, focusing on sections for research papers. Some rows are specific to the particular research, marked by the entry in the 'Context' column. Appendix B provided templated examples for more generic rows.

Note that general information about funding of the Network would typically go in the 'Acknowledgements' section. Specific information about SDE funding (including grant codes) would be included in the 'Funding' section only where the SDE has collaboratively contributed to the work.

It is recognised that the actual content in research publications and other documents may be limited by maximum word counts and specific style guides.

Appendix B provides examples of how these could be applied into journal articles and similar documents. The same principles can be applied to other documents relevant to the research which are not considered research outputs with Appendix C providing templated examples for generic aspects. Appendix A provides a checklist for researchers to facilitate reporting.

Recognising meaningful contributions

Meaningful contributions by Network teams should be acknowledged by research teams, including the technical and organisational effort required to develop dataflows and enable secure project delivery. In some projects, individuals from SDE may contribute meaningfully to planning or co-designing the approach.

Applying authorship criteria

Recognition through authorship for any single project may be a small matter, but can be important to future career progression. Authorship decisions should be guided by the criteria of the target journal, with the criteria used by Nature being more inclusive than those from International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Author lists can be extensive and people that primarily provided infrastructure are more often recognised outside of medicine.

Where appropriate, the SDE or Network may be included as a group author (for example, 'East of England SDE') or as part of a broader collaborative group authorship when individual naming is impractical.

If individuals from SDEs are included as co-authors and if the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is followed, their roles should include:

• data curation
• resources
• project administration/organisation

Examples are provided in Appendix D.

Acknowledgements and collaborator lists

Individuals from SDEs who do not meet authorship criteria should still be acknowledged for meaningful contributions. Significant contributions can be highlighted in the 'Acknowledgements' section (with permission from the individual). All SDE contributors should be listed in a formal collaborator list at the end of the manuscript or in a supplement. Each SDE should provide a downloadable cumulative list of staff involved, including dates of involvement.

Pre-submission review is only mandatory if explicitly stated in the data access agreement (DAA).

Otherwise, draft outputs should be offered for optional review to the primary contact at the SDE leading engagement with the research. Any matters of sensitivity or concern should be drawn to the SDE’s attention.

During any review where the SDE is not in the authorship group, SDE review should ensure accurate reflection of the SDE’s contribution, focusing on:

• disclosure control (such as preventing re-identification)
• reputation risk (such as misrepresentation of SDE)

Any review should be on a late-stage draft, ideally with a lay summary, and completed within 10 working days unless agreed otherwise. Advanced notification of intended timelines by the research team allows scheduling. The authors’ interpretation of research must not impact SDE reviews.

Research outputs are one important metric by which the Network may be evaluated. Researchers should promptly notify the Network of the final citation (or link) for inclusion with Network outputs through the dedicated web form (Appendix E).

The Network will periodically search for research publications using trackable fields in research publication repositories and citation logging sites such as PubMed, Web of Science and Medline. Examples of trackable fields include:

• SDE project ID (from data use register)
• Data asset DOI - data assets used and data assets generated
• SDE co-author affiliation
• SDE name in acknowledgements
• Network name in funding

Most research outputs will not be associated with media activities. However, if any media activity is, or becomes, planned:

• researchers should inform the primary contact at the SDE leading engagement with the research as soon as reasonably practicable and aim for at least 3 working days before contact with journalists, publishers, media organisations or news outlets
• there is an expectation that the primary contact at the SDE leading engagement with the research should help to ensure the research team accurately reflects the SDE and the Network
• a draft press release and any relevant research/other outputs related to the work should be shared with the notification for confidential review
• each SDE and the Network should be credited in media activity and press releases
• all media releases should aim to acknowledge that the work has been conducted using NHS data, and should thank the participants for the about them use of data
• it is acknowledged that media organisations will not respect the wish to include this information
• if media activities cannot be raised with the SDE ahead of time, they should be highlighted as soon as possible afterwards
• all media releases should acknowledge that the work has been conducted using NHS data, and should thank the participants for the use of data about them

Public-facing information about research outputs should be provided for each research project. If the project included consented participants, the findings should be returned to the participants themselves.

The safe and appropriate route by which NHS data have been accessed for research should be made clear in lay summaries of ongoing research and lay summaries of results. Example text is given in Appendix B. Public-facing materials help PPIE and non-expert members of data access committees, research ethics committees or funding committees, for example.

Where consent is being taken to participate in prospective research involving the SDE, the role of the SDE should be clear whether that is in:

1. identification and invitation
2. subsequent data collection
3. both

Appendix B and Appendix C give examples.

Researchers

Research outputs should be produced promptly. Research teams should consider how to constructively implement these points in advance of research outputs and presentations. Researchers should ensure that the Network is informed of all outputs, including reporting of publications. Research outputs should not go beyond the extent agreed in the DAA.

SDEs

SDEs should reference this policy in DAA and draw it to the attention of successful applicant researchers. Reviews of outputs, where undertaken, should be done promptly and constructively. SDEs should make all recognition information required for manuscript preparation readily available, including the project number, details of any dedicated funding, and a list of contributing staff (with the period of their involvement), preferably in a format downloadable from the website.

Network

The Network will host this guidance centrally and review it annually. A central registry of research outputs will be maintained.

In the unlikely event of disputes, these should be resolved before the relevant research output is published or presented. If funder or publisher policies conflict with this guidance, these should be identified early and researchers should make every effort to meet these Network principles. If disagreements arise, resolution should be sought initially between researchers and senior members via the primary contact at the SDE leading engagement with the research. This discussion should include other involved SDEs, where appropriate.

The escalation routes for constructively resolving any disagreement should include the SDE central team which may defer to governance committees or a delegated group. Resolution should be balanced and rapid.

This policy will be reviewed early after implementation, then renewed regularly, at least annually. The current version and archived versions should be available to researchers. If the live version of Network policy at the time of producing a research output is different to the version cited in the DAA, the earlier version should be followed as a default, with the research team making efforts to follow the principles in the updated version where possible.

Network mailbox: [email protected]

SDE contacts: see individual SDE Network pages at Data available through the SDE network

Contributors are listed in the appendices.