SMEC: a proposed specialist collaboration framework

Problem and starting point

The initial SMEC proposal starts from the need for sustained dialogue between researchers, industry and policy analysts. TBT INVEST follows this topic within its study portfolio to turn mobility-economy questions into documented, reviewable recommendations.

Core research question

How can industrial experience inform research while preserving scientific independence, diverse perspectives and the right to challenge findings?

Initial work completed

An advisory mission, study domains, proposed bodies and committees, and an initial roadmap have been drafted. This is an establishment proposal, not an existing council or evidence of external endorsement.

Proposed research method

Proposed methods are institutional and comparative analysis of advisory arrangements, documented case review and stakeholder interviews. Case selection, comparison criteria and expert validation must be recorded in the study protocol.

Further research needed

Member and reviewer selection, agenda independence, dissent publication, funding, data rights and authorship require further work. Founder and chair powers must be examined against scientific independence.

Path to testing and implementation

A first trial could be one focused expert discussion supported by an evidence report and policy brief. Evaluation should examine process and output quality; a permanent institution is not a prerequisite.

Measures and decision criteria

Review citation traceability, diversity of expertise and perspectives, response to criticism, unresolved questions and documented use of findings. Meeting or publication counts alone do not establish scientific impact.

Roles and decision quality

The proposed council is research-oriented and advisory. Investment decisions and commercial implementation must remain separate. Funding disclosure, conflicts, independent review and a recorded dissent mechanism are quality-design requirements.

Sources and review references

Sources inform proposed research design and review. Referencing them does not establish full implementation of a method or endorsement by the publisher.

1. UNESCO — Recommendation on Open Science, 2021

   Research ethics, transparency and responsible knowledge sharing, subject to rights and confidentiality.

2. OECD — Frascati Manual 2015

   Reference for distinguishing R&D from service design and consultancy.

Legal references and open checks

Host legal identity, charter, name and logo permissions, copyright, confidentiality and research-support contracts need review. The Open Science Recommendation informs method and ethics; it is not establishment permission or a substitute for domestic rules.

Linked legal texts are reference copies. Checking current amendments, sector rules and permissions remains a separate prerequisite to each pilot. These references confer no public authority or investment-raising permission on TBT INVEST.

Next step

Revise the proposed charter to separate scientific and executive authority, then design one bounded study and independent-review criteria. The existing Persian ecosystem introduction is linked to this dossier.