Early stageIn use for research discovery and prioritization. Coverage and scoring are still developing. Add evidence, ratings, or corrections to help improve the shortlist; the team makes final evaluation decisions.
Help choose research for independent evaluation by The Unjournal
Independent-rating view. Existing priority scores, recommendations, human feedback, and prioritization analyses are hidden until you rate each paper in this browser, reducing anchoring from other judgments. Abstracts and source metadata remain visible. Papers are ordered newest first.Why rate independently?Return to the full dashboard.
Find impactful research for your own work, and help The Unjournal prioritize research with impact potential for evaluation / peer review. Sort and filter by field, source, and cause (topic), then add your prioritization judgment. Scores estimate evaluation priority and global impact potentialHow strongly we recommend commissioning an independent Unjournal evaluation of this paper. This considers decision relevance, the added value of evaluation, timing, and likely influence. A high score does not mean the research is good or bad. on a 0–100 scale. They are not ratings of research quality. These are also provisional and AI-generated unless noted below.
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.
Turn on quick rating to add your judgment directly on each card. Preview the abstract, then choose --, -, ~, +, or ++ directly on the card. Written comments and a percentile rating can be added from Details / rate/discuss. Revisiting a paper from the same browser updates that rating rather than adding another.
-
Shown
-
AI shortlist
More filters: discovery, workflow, and models
Discovery and targeted searches
Human workflow and research questions
AI models and additional collections
Targeted intake:Requested topic-focused searches deliberately oversample some areas; inclusion is not an endorsement or prevalence estimate.Browse the search catalog →
Revised impact rubric · updating coverage
The revised impact assessment considers what the research adds to global welfare compared with existing knowledge and alternatives. It supplies the impact component of both display lenses and custom weights where available. Read the rubric, prompt and change notes, or compare impact assessments.
Score weightsCustom weights
Adjust these sliders to create your own priority score, then sort by Custom weights. This changes only your browser view; it does not change The Unjournal scorer.
Quick-rate mode: for each paper, how strongly should The Unjournal commission an evaluation?
(-- Strong No … ++ Strong Yes)For aggregation and sorting, the five quick ratings translate to percentile-equivalent scores: -- = 10, - = 30, ~ = 50, + = 70, and ++ = 90. These are deliberately spaced away from 0 and 100. Each quick rating has weight 1; a full rating has weight 2, or 3 (public) / 4 (team) with detailed discussion.. Quick ratings are counted separately and carry less weight than full ratings.Preview the abstract before rating (hover over its preview line, or open Details / rate / discuss for more context); title-only ratings are not useful.
Read the paper or linked source when practical. Each click is saved to The Unjournal's server, and a later choice from the same browser revises that paper's rating. Add your name or email once below; the detailed form will reuse it. To avoid being anchored by existing scores, use the independent-rating view. Rating and privacy guide.0 rated this session
Scores combine AI estimates with human ratings where available. Small score differences are not decisive. Open a paper for the evidence and rating breakdown.
Suggest research for this list
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.
Add more detail (optional) — helps us prioritise faster
Suggestion received — thank you!
Submit your own research
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.
Open the author submission form
Submission received — thank you!
Fields marked * are needed for us to process your submission.
Suggest research — Unjournal team
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.
Open the team suggestion form
Prioritisation detail (optional)
Team-only
If the paper fits any of these, tick all that apply:
Suggestion received — thank you!
Fields marked * help us process and credit your suggestion.
Read the planned workflow for discovery, independent assessment, team decisions, and future calibration.