.jpg){kind=link}
- Published
- Updated
Personal information may appear covered on a page yet remain accessible through copying, searching or another viewer. Visual inspection should not be the only acceptance check when preparing a document for publication or controlled sharing.
Preserve the meaning of data
Define information to remove from the sharing copy. Visible pages, text layers, comments, file properties and attachments may each contain relevant information. Keep the authorised original separately controlled while testing the proposed copy through realistic use. Expert review should also assess whether redaction distorts the scientific meaning needed by its intended audience.
Worked example
For example, a person’s name is covered with a black shape in a submission attachment but appears when text is copied. The team creates a new copy using an appropriate technical redaction method, then checks search, extraction and different viewers. It separately assesses any earlier sharing. Making the visual shape thicker would not resolve the underlying problem.
Review checks
- Review search and extracted text as well as the visible page.
- Check comments, properties and attachments for unnecessary identifiers.
- Confirm that essential scientific explanations remain understandable after redaction.
Acceptance and boundaries
Acceptance means information designated for removal is not still usable in the defined sharing copy and necessary meaning is preserved. This does not establish one legal privacy status for every file. Assess purpose and audience separately. During reprocessing, prevent the original from being shared accidentally and keep selection of the intended copy traceable to its review decision.
Frequently asked questions
- Does a black shape constitute effective redaction?
- A visual mask may leave underlying information intact, so test the result technically.
- Is text extraction alone sufficient?
- No. Images, comments and attachments can carry information too and should be assessed within scope.