Institutional Governance
Leadership and oversight
The Secretary of Strategic Continuity is responsible for the Department’s direction and performance. Two senior officials have defined roles in research governance that are separate from the management line. The Chief Scientist is responsible for scientific quality and gives final scientific clearance for research publications. The Chief Ethics and Research Integrity Officer sets research integrity and ethics policy and receives concerns about misconduct; this officer has direct access to the Secretary and to the External Scientific Advisory Board.
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) carries out audits, inspections and investigations of the Department’s programs and operations, independently of Department management. It decides its own work plan and reports its findings without prior clearance by the Department.
Independent review bodies
| Body | Composition | Cadence | Role | Effect of decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| External Scientific Advisory Board (ESAB) | 14 external members | Quarterly | Portfolio review; program phase transitions; scientific quality | Advisory; written responses published by the Department |
| Research Ethics Review Board (RERB) | Standing board of scientists, ethicists, clinicians and lay members | Continuous | Reviews all NCRP protocols and other human-subject research | Binding approval, modification, suspension or termination |
| Model Review Panel (MRP) | Independent modelers and domain experts | Each major ICSM version | Reviews ICSM structure, calibration and validation | Clearance required before published use; dissents published |
Members of the ESAB and the MRP serve fixed terms and must disclose financial and professional interests. Members recuse themselves from matters in which they have a conflict. Summary minutes of ESAB meetings are published after each meeting.
Research integrity policy
The Department’s research integrity policy applies to federal staff, contractors and grantees. It prohibits fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, and it also covers the alteration or suppression of scientific findings for non-scientific reasons. Authors may decline to have their names attached to a document whose conclusions have been changed without their agreement. Disagreements on scientific matters are recorded and, where material, published with the document concerned. Allegations are handled by the Office of Ethics and Research Integrity under written procedures that protect both complainants and respondents. Retaliation against anyone who raises a concern in good faith is prohibited.
Model governance
The Integrated Civilizational Systems Model is the Department’s most consequential analytical instrument, and it is governed accordingly. The Office of Strategic Risk Assessment owns the model. Changes are managed under version control with a public numbering convention: a change of major version (for example 3 to 4) alters model structure, a minor version (4.0 to 4.2) alters calibration or modules within that structure, and each published result names the version that produced it. A major version must be reviewed by the Model Review Panel before it can be used for published findings.
Every production run is archived with its full configuration, input data and code version, so that published results can be reproduced. When panel members dissent, the dissents are published. In the review of ICSM v4.2, two dissenting opinions about the calibration of the Governance and Social Cohesion module were recorded and appear in the limitations of DSC-TR-2026-014.
Data governance
Every dataset the Department holds has a named data steward and a classification setting its handling, retention and release conditions. Human neural, clinical and behavioral data may be used only under an approved RERB protocol and only within the scope of the consent obtained. Such data is held in access-controlled enclaves, de-identified wherever the research allows, and never released in identifiable form. The draft Neural Data Preservation Framework proposes standards for the packaging, provenance and long-term preservation of neural datasets. Preservation copies of records designated for permanent retention are held at more than one facility.
Publication review and clearance
Every public document receives an identifier of the form DSC-<series>-<year>-<sequence>, for example DSC-TR-2026-014. The identifier is assigned when a document is registered at the start of review, not when it is released. Sequence numbers are shared across all series within a calendar year. Some registered numbers belong to internal documents or to documents that were not released, so gaps in the public sequence are expected.
| Series code | Series | Typical content | External review |
|---|---|---|---|
| TR | Technical Report | Completed research results, model descriptions, assessments | Required |
| WP | Working Paper | Developing methods and conceptual frameworks, published for discussion | Recommended |
| FW | Framework | Standards and frameworks, often released as drafts for comment | Required, plus public comment |
| ADM | Policy and Administrative | Priorities, policies and administrative statements | Not applicable |
A research publication passes through the following steps:
- Registration. The authoring division registers the document and receives its identifier.
- Division technical review. Reviewers in the division who are independent of the authors check methods, data and conclusions.
- External peer review. Technical Reports and Frameworks are reviewed by at least two qualified reviewers from outside the Department. Results that rely on the ICSM must also hold Model Review Panel clearance for the model version used.
- Ethics review. Documents that draw on human-subject research are checked against the approved RERB protocols.
- Release review. Security, privacy and legal staff review the document for information that may not be released. They may request redactions but may not alter scientific findings; any redaction is noted in the published text.
- Scientific clearance. The Chief Scientist confirms that the review steps are complete. Policy and Administrative documents are approved by the Secretary.
- Publication. The document is released with its version, status (Final, Interim or Draft for Comment) and the distribution statement “Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.”