BACKGROUND: Dual-use research of concern (DURC) refers to legitimate scientific research that, if misapplied, could cause significant harm. Journal editors play an important role in ensuring that disseminated research does not pose unacceptable risks to society. We conducted a thematic analysis of DURC policies adopted by life science journals. METHODS: Top 10 journals listed in Google Scholar Metrics (February 2026) across 15 life science categories yielded 133 journals after de-duplication. Each journal's website was screened for a policy addressing DURC, biosafety, or biosecurity. Following de-duplication of policies, a set of unique DURC policies was established. Policies were coded using color-coded identifiers for key stakeholders and actions, and themes were identified through reviewer consensus. RESULTS: Fifty-nine journals (44.36%) had a clear policy addressing DURC, biosafety, or biosecurity. De-duplication yielded 11 distinct policy documents. Thematic analysis revealed five themes: (1) transparency and disclosure; (2) regulatory compliance; (3) editorial oversight and gatekeeping; (4) distributed responsibility; and (5) different definitions of DURC. CONCLUSION: Many life science journals continue to lack explicit DURC policies. Among those with policies, there is a shared expectation that authors, reviewers, and editors are adequately trained to recognize and manage DURC-related risks, an assumption that may be unwarranted.
Bobier et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: