LogoLogo
  • The Unjournal
  • An Introduction to The Unjournal
    • Content overview
    • How to get involved
      • Brief version of call
      • Impactful Research Prize (pilot)
      • Jobs and paid projects with The Unjournal
        • Advisory/team roles (research, management)
        • Administration, operations and management roles
        • Research & operations-linked roles & projects
        • Standalone project: Impactful Research Scoping (temp. pause)
      • Independent evaluations (trial)
        • Reviewers from previous journal submissions
    • Organizational roles and responsibilities
      • Unjournal Field Specialists: Incentives and norms (trial)
    • Our team
      • Reinstein's story in brief
    • Plan of action
    • Explanations & outreach
      • Press releases
      • Outreach texts
      • Related articles and work
    • Updates (earlier)
      • Impactful Research Prize Winners
      • Previous updates
  • Why Unjournal?
    • Reshaping academic evaluation: Beyond accept/reject
    • Promoting open and robust science
    • Global priorities: Theory of Change (Logic Model)
      • Balancing information accessibility and hazard concerns
    • Promoting 'Dynamic Documents' and 'Living Research Projects'
      • Benefits of Dynamic Documents
      • Benefits of Living Research Projects
    • The File Drawer Effect (Article)
    • Open, reliable, and useful evaluation
      • Multiple dimensions of feedback
  • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
    • For research authors
    • Evaluation ('refereeing')
    • Suggesting and prioritizing research
  • Our policies: evaluation & workflow
    • Project submission, selection and prioritization
      • What research to target?
      • What specific areas do we cover?
      • Process: prioritizing research
        • Prioritization ratings: discussion
      • Suggesting research (forms, guidance)
      • "Direct evaluation" track
      • "Applied and Policy" Track
      • 'Conditional embargos' & exceptions
      • Formats, research stage, publication status
    • Evaluation
      • For prospective evaluators
      • Guidelines for evaluators
        • Why these guidelines/metrics?
        • Proposed curating robustness replication
        • Conventional guidelines for referee reports
      • Why pay evaluators (reviewers)?
      • Protecting anonymity
    • Mapping evaluation workflow
      • Evaluation workflow – Simplified
    • Communicating results
    • Recap: submissions
  • What is global-priorities-relevant research?
  • "Pivotal questions"
    • ‘Operationalizable’ questions
    • Why "operationalizable questions"?
  • Action and progress
    • Pilot steps
      • Pilot: Building a founding committee
      • Pilot: Identifying key research
      • Pilot: Setting up platforms
      • Setting up evaluation guidelines for pilot papers
      • 'Evaluators': Identifying and engaging
    • Plan of action (cross-link)
  • Grants and proposals
    • Survival and Flourishing Fund (successful)
    • ACX/LTFF grant proposal (as submitted, successful)
      • Notes: post-grant plan and revisions
      • (Linked proposals and comments - moved for now)
    • Unsuccessful applications
      • Clearer Thinking FTX regranting (unsuccessful)
      • FTX Future Fund (for further funding; unsuccessful)
      • Sloan
  • Parallel/partner initiatives and resources
    • eLife
    • Peer Communities In
    • Sciety
    • Asterisk
    • Related: EA/global priorities seminar series
    • EA and EA Forum initiatives
      • EA forum peer reviewing (related)
      • Links to EA Forum/"EA journal"
    • Other non-journal evaluation
    • Economics survey (Charness et al.)
  • Management details [mostly moved to Coda]
    • Governance of The Unjournal
    • Status, expenses, and payments
    • Evaluation manager process
      • Choosing evaluators (considerations)
        • Avoiding COI
        • Tips and text for contacting evaluators (private)
    • UJ Team: resources, onboarding
    • Policies/issues discussion
    • Research scoping discussion spaces
    • Communication and style
  • Tech, tools and resources
    • Tech scoping
    • Hosting & platforms
      • PubPub
      • Kotahi/Sciety (phased out)
        • Kotahi: submit/eval/mgmt (may be phasing out?)
        • Sciety (host & curate evals)
    • This GitBook; editing it, etc
    • Other tech and tools
      • Cryptpad (for evaluator or other anonymity)
      • hypothes.is for collab. annotation
Powered by GitBook
On this page

Was this helpful?

Export as PDF
  1. Management details [mostly moved to Coda]
  2. Evaluation manager process
  3. Choosing evaluators (considerations)

Avoiding COI

Mapping collaborator networks through Research Rabbit

PreviousChoosing evaluators (considerations)NextUJ Team: resources, onboarding

Last updated 1 year ago

Was this helpful?

We use a website called (RR).

Our RR database contains papers we are considering evaluating. To check potential COI, we use the following steps:

  1. After choosing a paper, we select the button "these authors." This presents all the authors for that paper.

  2. After this, we choose "select all," and click "collaborators." This presents all the people that have collaborated on papers with the authors.

  3. Finally, by using the "filter" function, we can determine whether the potential evaluator has ever collaborated with an author from the paper.

  4. If a potential evaluator has no COI, we will add them to our list of possible evaluators for this paper.

Note: Coauthorship is not a disqualifier for a potential evaluator; however, we think it should be avoided where possible. If it cannot be avoided, we will note it publicly.

Research Rabbit