Independence and transparency

Our analysis is only useful if readers can trust that it is ours. This page sets out how we protect that, and what we disclose.

Our commitments at a glance

  1. Our conclusions are our own No sponsor, partner or university influences what we conclude.
  2. Every funder is public Each funder is listed below, with the type of support.
  3. Interests are declared Members and reviewers declare links that could bias their work.
  4. Work is reviewed An expert with no conflict on the topic reviews each publication.
  5. Errors are corrected openly Corrections are dated and visible on the publication.

Editorial independence

Cobalis decides what it researches and what it concludes. Sponsors, partners and the institutions our members study at do not influence research conclusions.

Publications state the views of their authors. They are not the position of any university, company or public body, and they do not imply endorsement by any institution mentioned on this site.

Funding

Our funding model combines talent-acquisition sponsorship from companies in the mining, metallurgy and battery-materials sectors with university grants for impact projects. Every funder is listed here, with the type of support, as soon as an agreement is signed.

Funders to date: none. No sponsorship or grant agreement has been signed yet.

Conflicts of interest

  • Every member and reviewer declares links to organisations active in the areas we cover: employment, advisory roles, funding and close personal ties.
  • A member with a conflict on a topic does not lead or review a publication on that topic.
  • Where a declared interest is relevant to a publication, the publication says so.
  • Declarations are kept up to date and reviewed by the operational board.

How publications are reviewed

  1. Hub analysts draft the publication and cite their sources.

  2. The technical or policy lead responsible for the hub reviews the argument and the evidence.

  3. A technical expert with no declared conflict on the topic, usually from the advisory board, reviews it.

  4. An editor checks clarity, sources and consistency.

  5. The publication is released with its authors and, where they agree, its reviewers named.

Corrections

If we get something wrong, we correct it openly and add a dated note to the publication. To report an error, contact us with the source.

Last reviewed: