Help choose research for independent evaluation by The Unjournal
Browse research for independent evaluation. Default scores combine AI estimates and human ratings of evaluation priority, not research quality.
Read paper discussions Selected papers with fuller evidence, ratings, and discussion.Public-safe human suggestions appear here with their origin. A qualifying team rating—or sufficiently strong, discussed public feedback—flags the paper for an independent team assessment and adds a Needs further prioritization assessment label. Team members can follow that label to the internal prioritization hub (sign-in required) for an independent follow-up assessment. The label marks a workflow step. Under our current commissioning policyPolicy dated October 1, 2026, for roughly the next ten papers/projects while funding is limited: anyone can nominate research. Two management-team members strongly approving makes it conditionally approved; strong support from several field specialists also receives serious consideration. Conditional approvals are announced in relevant team Slack channels, with one week for the whole team, including field specialists, to raise strong doubts. If none are raised, commissioning proceeds. Email contact@unjournal.org to request email notifications., two management-team strong approvals trigger conditional approval and a one-week team review before commissioning.
The Unjournal commissions public evaluations of economics, quantitative social science, forecasting, and policy-relevant research that can inform global welfare decisions. This tool discovers candidates and gathers AI and human prioritization judgments. Read how to use this project, the scoring methodology, or the rating and privacy guide. For corrections, use the feedback buttons on each paper or the Hypothes.is sidebar.
Scores combine AI estimates with human ratings where available. Small score differences are not decisive. Open a paper for the evidence and rating breakdown.
Know of high-impact research we should consider for evaluation — or other work this tool should be doing? Leave an email if you're open to follow-up discussion; if we later introduce compensation for useful contributions, earlier contributors will be grandfathered in.
We know you may have doubts about contributing to a largely AI-driven site. We’ll try to respond personally to each substantial contribution. To flag something directly or discuss the value of contributing, email contact@unjournal.org.
Is this your own research? This form is for suggesting others’ work. To submit your own work (or your organisation’s) for evaluation, please use the author submission form ↓.
On The Unjournal team? Use the team suggestion form ↓ instead — it adds the internal fields (your team identity, COI considerations, second-opinion routing, fast-tracking) and is the reward-eligible route.
Are you an author — or a research organisation — who would like The Unjournal to commission a public evaluation of your work? Submit it here for the team to review. Connecting this intake to the team’s main Coda workflow is still in progress. (To suggest someone else’s research, use the suggestion form above.) Questions: contact@unjournal.org.
Fields marked * are needed for us to process your submission.
For Unjournal team members and field specialists. Feeds the same database as the public suggestion form, but adds the internal fields (your team identity, COI considerations, second-opinion routing, fast-tracking) and is the reward-eligible route. Not on the team? Use the public suggestion form above.
Fields marked * help us process and credit your suggestion.
Read the planned workflow for discovery, independent assessment, team decisions, and future calibration.