Collaborative research is essential for improving the monitoring and conservation of bears, wolves, lynxes and golden jackals across the Adriatic-Ionian Region, where populations, habitats, threats, and management systems often extend across institutional and national boundaries. Cooperation between researchers, universities, research institutes, conservation organisations, protected-area authorities, governmental institutions, local experts, and other data providers can increase the geographic and temporal scope of research and enable analyses that would not be possible using data from individual projects or institutions.
Collaborative research should be based on transparency, mutual respect, clearly defined responsibilities, and appropriate recognition of contributions. The roles of participating institutions and individuals should be discussed and, where possible, agreed before data are analysed or research outputs are prepared. This is particularly important when existing monitoring datasets, samples, photographs, genetic material, or unpublished information are combined from multiple sources.
The use of data and other research materials should respect the conditions under which they were collected and any agreements between data providers and collaborators. Data should not be used for new research purposes, shared with third parties, or published in ways that were not agreed with the original data providers, unless the relevant permissions or agreements allow such use.
Authorship should reflect substantial contributions to the research and preparation of the publication, while individuals or organisations that provide valuable data, field support, technical assistance, or other contributions that do not meet authorship criteria should receive appropriate acknowledgement. Contributions should be discussed openly and revised when project roles change.
Scientific publications, reports, maps, presentations, and public communications should accurately represent the methods, data sources, limitations, and contributions involved in the research. Sensitive information, including precise locations of vulnerable populations, breeding or resting sites, mortality locations, or other information that could create conservation risks, should be handled in accordance with responsible data-sharing principles.
Collaborators should aim to resolve disagreements through early and transparent communication. Where disputes concerning data use, authorship, interpretation, or publication cannot be resolved informally, participating institutions should use agreed procedures for mediation or resolution. The overall objective should be to promote equitable and productive collaboration while maintaining scientific integrity, protecting sensitive information, and recognising the contributions of all participants.
Principles of Research Collaboration
Transparent and Equitable Collaboration
Collaborative research involving large carnivores and golden jackals should be based on transparency, mutual respect, scientific integrity, and clearly defined responsibilities. Collaboration should aim to combine complementary expertise, data, resources, and knowledge while ensuring that all participating partners are appropriately recognised for their contributions.
Researchers and institutions should discuss the objectives, expected outputs, roles, responsibilities, and general conditions of collaboration as early as possible. Where projects involve multiple countries or institutions, differences in national legislation, institutional procedures, data ownership, ethical requirements, and conservation priorities should be recognised from the beginning.
Defining Roles and Responsibilities
The roles of participating researchers, institutions, conservation organisations, and other contributors should be clearly defined. Depending on the project, responsibilities may include study design, fieldwork, sample collection, species identification, data management, laboratory analyses, statistical analysis, interpretation, funding, project coordination, and preparation of publications or reports.
Responsibilities should not be assumed solely on the basis of institutional affiliation or seniority. They should reflect the actual contribution of each participant and may change during the course of a project. Significant changes in responsibilities should be discussed and documented.
Cross-border and Interdisciplinary Cooperation
Because large carnivore and golden jackal populations frequently extend across administrative and national borders, collaborative research should be encouraged between neighbouring countries and institutions. Where appropriate, common terminology, compatible datasets, shared methodological principles, and coordinated analytical approaches should be used.
Interdisciplinary cooperation should also be encouraged where it improves understanding of ecological, genetic, veterinary, social, economic, or conservation aspects of large carnivore and golden jackal populations.
Early Agreement
For projects involving substantial shared datasets, samples, or other research materials, partners should consider establishing a written collaboration or data-use agreement before analysis begins. Such an agreement may define the purpose of the research, participating partners, responsibilities, data access, expected outputs, authorship principles, acknowledgement, confidentiality, and procedures for resolving disagreements.
Early agreement can prevent misunderstandings and help ensure that collaboration remains transparent and equitable throughout the research process.
Data Use, Roles and Responsibilities
Responsible Use of Shared Data
Research data should be used in accordance with the conditions under which they were collected and with any agreements established between data providers and collaborators. Before combining datasets from different institutions or countries, researchers should clarify the permitted uses of the data and any restrictions on analysis, redistribution, publication, or public release.
Data provided for one specific research purpose should not automatically be assumed to be available for unrelated studies. Where new research questions or additional analyses substantially extend the original purpose of data sharing, the relevant data providers should be consulted.
Recognition of Data Providers
The contribution of institutions and individuals that collect, manage, curate, or provide data should be recognised appropriately. This is particularly important for long-term monitoring programmes, where the value of a dataset may depend on many years of fieldwork and contributions from numerous people.
Data providers should have the opportunity to understand how their data will be analysed and how the resulting findings will be presented. Where appropriate, they should be invited to participate in interpretation and preparation of outputs, particularly when their local or long-term knowledge is important for understanding the results.
Samples, Images and Other Research Materials
The same principles should apply to biological samples, photographs, genetic material, tissue collections, camera-trap datasets, acoustic recordings, and other research materials. Before these materials are transferred or used by another research team, responsibilities and conditions for their use should be clarified.
Researchers should respect relevant permits, ethical approvals, ownership arrangements, agreements with landowners or authorities, and other conditions associated with the collection or storage of research materials.
Data Interpretation and Limitations
Collaborators should have access to sufficient information about the origin, collection methods, quality, and limitations of shared datasets to interpret them appropriately. Differences in sampling effort, methodology, spatial coverage, temporal coverage, or data quality between participating datasets should be documented and considered during analysis.
No partner should selectively use or exclude data solely to produce a preferred scientific or conservation conclusion. Analytical decisions should be scientifically justified and, where appropriate, discussed among collaborators before publication.
Authorship, Acknowledgement and Recognition
Authorship Principles
Authorship should reflect substantial intellectual or practical contributions to the research and to the preparation of the publication. Decisions about authorship should be based on contribution rather than institutional position, seniority, funding status, or ownership of an organisation or dataset alone.
Potential contributions may include development of the research question or study design, substantial data collection, laboratory or analytical work, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, preparation of the manuscript, or substantial critical revision of the final publication.
Authorship expectations should be discussed as early as possible and revisited if the contributions of collaborators change during the project. All proposed authors should have the opportunity to review and approve the final version of a manuscript before submission.
Acknowledgement of Contributions
Not every contribution necessarily meets the criteria for authorship. Individuals, institutions, field teams, rangers, technicians, local experts, citizen scientists, data managers, funding bodies, and other contributors who provide valuable support should receive appropriate acknowledgement where their contribution does not justify authorship.
Acknowledgements should be specific and should reflect the actual contribution. Where large monitoring programmes involve numerous field contributors, the relevant institutions should establish an appropriate and transparent system for recognising their collective contribution.
Data and Institutional Attribution
Institutions responsible for long-term monitoring or maintenance of important datasets should be appropriately identified in publications and other outputs. Where possible, publications should clearly state the origin of major datasets and the institutions or projects responsible for their collection.
Data citations or other formal recognition mechanisms should be used where appropriate and where established by the relevant data providers or repositories.
Clear communication about authorship and acknowledgement can help prevent misunderstandings and support equitable collaboration between institutions and countries.
Publication, Communication and Conflict Resolution
Preparation and Review of Publications
Collaborative publications should accurately describe the origin of the data, methods used, participating institutions, and relevant limitations of the study. Where datasets from different countries, institutions, or monitoring programmes are combined, differences in methodology, sampling design, or data quality should be transparently reported.
All contributors with authorship should have a reasonable opportunity to review the manuscript and provide comments before submission. Scientific disagreement should be addressed through discussion of evidence, methods, and interpretation rather than through the exclusion of alternative viewpoints.
Sensitive Information in Publications
Researchers should consider the potential conservation consequences of publishing detailed information about large carnivores and golden jackals. Scientific publications, maps, presentations, reports, websites, and other outputs should not unnecessarily reveal precise locations of dens, breeding or resting sites, vulnerable individuals, mortality locations, or other sensitive information.
Where detailed spatial information is scientifically necessary, the potential risks should be assessed and appropriate safeguards should be applied. This principle should be consistent with the provisions of Open Data and Responsible Information Sharing.
Public Communication
Research findings should be communicated accurately and proportionately. Public statements should distinguish between established findings, preliminary results, and uncertain interpretations. Particular care should be taken when communicating information that could influence public attitudes toward large carnivores, golden jackals, hunting, livestock management, or human–wildlife conflict.
Where research is communicated through media, websites, or social media, the roles of collaborating institutions and major contributors should be appropriately recognised.
Conflict Resolution
Disagreements may arise concerning data ownership, access, analytical decisions, authorship, interpretation, or publication. Such disagreements should be addressed as early as possible through direct and respectful communication between the relevant collaborators.
Where a disagreement cannot be resolved informally, the partners should use the procedures established in the relevant collaboration or data-use agreement. Depending on the nature of the dispute, this may include consultation with project coordinators, institutional representatives, independent scientific colleagues, or other agreed mediation mechanisms.
The objective should be to resolve disagreements fairly while protecting scientific integrity and maintaining constructive relationships between collaborating institutions and individuals.