Traditional journals can use Unjournal evaluations
Partnership Proposal: Summary
We invite academic journals to recognize The Unjournal's public evaluation packages in their editorial process. We envision a lightweight partnership that can reduce journals' reviewer and editorial burden, improve decision-making, increase transparency, and support open science, while preserving full journal independence.
When authors submit research that the Unjournal has evaluated, journal editors could
Use our evaluations and ratings (e.g., 'merited journal tier') to consider whether to invite peer reviews, what sort of expertise is needed, and how to guide reviewers.
Encourage reviewers to read these evaluations, setting explicit policies for how previous assessments should be considered.
What The Unjournal Provides
Structured, public evaluation packages including:
Referee-style written assessments from expert evaluators
Authors' responses
Quantitative ratings on research quality dimensions (methods, communication, etc.), benchmarked as percentiles relative to an external reference group, as well as easy to compare across our evaluations (see our ratings dashboard)
Identification and assessment of the main claims, recommended robustness checks
"Journal tier" recommendations and predictions (e.g., "top-5," "top field journal," ...)
"Evaluation manager's" syntheses of this work and its implications
All evaluations are commissioned independently, conducted by domain and field experts, and published with DOIs, openly accessible and permanently linked to the research.
What we're asking
The steps below are similar to existing cascading and portable peer review agreements among journals, and "author-mediated transfer" policies (e.g., see The Economic Journal's policies).
1. Editorial Triage (Primary Request)
When an Unjournal evaluation package exists for a submitted manuscript:
Consider the package, perhaps focusing on the "merited journal tier" assessment and the "Overall assessment" percentile score in desk/triage decisions.
Use this as one input among your standard criteria for this decision
Consider our reports in deciding whom to send it to and what guidance to give
Retain full editorial discretion — the evaluation does not bind your decision
2. Reviewer Consultation (optional)
Encourage reviewers to consult the Unjournal package when appropriate
Editors or journal policies set the terms and guidance for how reviewers should consider previous evaluations in their writing and recommendations
Reviewers should form independent judgments and explicitly note any aspects of their report that was influenced by previous evaluations
Transparency and recognition
We would appreciate if you could recognize this partnership publicly, both for transparency and to boost impact. We give some examples below.
A. Sample policy statement
Add to your author guidelines:
Use of Public Evaluation Packages Our editors may consider public evaluation packages from The Unjournal when deciding whether to send a manuscript for external review. Where available, we take into account structured metrics and "merited journal tier" recommendations alongside our standard criteria. Final decisions remain at the editors' discretion.
Guidance for Reviewers Reviewers may consult The Unjournal's evaluation package for context but should form independent judgments. If referenced, cite and link to the package in your report.
B. Acknowledgment at Acceptance (when used)
For accepted papers that benefited from Unjournal evaluations, include a statement like the one below on the hosted page and in a footnote in the paper.
This review process was informed by The Unjournal's evaluation package: [link our package]. However, the reviewers take full responsibility for their judgments and recommendations and the final decisions were made by the editorial board independently of previous assessments.
C. Public Recognition
Permit The Unjournal to list your journal as a partner and acknowledge the relationship on our website and communications (e.g., similar to PCI-friendly journal listings). We encourage you to do the same.
Precedent
PCI-Friendly Journals Model
Many journals publicly state they consider Peer Community In (PCI) evaluations and are listed as "PCI-friendly." Our proposal follows this established model of transparent recognition while maintaining editorial independence. peercommunityin.org
The Economic Journal "Past Reports" Policy
The Economic Journal explicitly encourages authors to include editor letters and referee reports from previous submissions (EJ Instructions §5.1 Supporting Information—Past Reports), allowing editors to use them in decisions. OUP Academic
NSF/NIH Pre-Submission Inquiry Systems
Many funding agencies allow preliminary assessments to guide full applications.
Benefits
For journals
Reduced review burden: Use existing expert assessments to inform desk decisions Faster turnaround: Expedite triage with pre-existing evaluations Enhanced transparency: Public Unjournal evaluations provide context and boost understanding of methodological considerations and the peer review process Quality signals: Authors with strong Unjournal evaluations will self-select to submit their work to journals that value them Community leadership: Join journals advancing scholarly communication. Demonstrate openness to open science practices.
For The Unjournal
The Unjournal promotes public evaluation of hosted research as an alternative to "accept/reject" journal publications as a more efficient process and a more informative and measure research quality and usefulness. But we recognize that moving from existing systems is difficult, people will work within current incentives, and journal-based peer review also adds value. We're working to leverage existing systems to facilitate a gradual transition.
We want to raise awareness of our work, boost our credibility and demonstrate impact. Partnering with journals can do this and will encourage authors to submit their work with us and engage with our evaluations further.
Joint-benefits and further collaboration
We're happy to work with traditional journals in other mutually-beneficial ways, such as:
(As noted above) Deeper integrations are possible where journals could commit to automatic decisions or interim processes based on Unjournal ratings.
Sharing resources and insights about the review/evaluation process, guidelines for reviewers, etc. to help promote efficient, credible, transparent peer review and support open science.
Editors may want to recommend that authors submit particularly Unjournal-relevant work to us, either as an endpoint or as an initial step for further consideration.
Anticipated concerns
Q: Does this compromise our editorial independence? A: No. Editors retain complete discretion. The Unjournal evaluation is one input among many, just as prior referee reports or working paper citations might be.
Q: What if we disagree with the Unjournal evaluation? A: Disagreement is expected and appropriate. Your editors' judgment supersedes any external assessment. You can desk-reject papers with positive Unjournal evaluations or send for papers with lukewarm evaluations out for review.
Q: Will this create author expectations or appeals? A: Authors understand that Unjournal evaluations are informative, not determinative. Your submission guidelines should make clear that editors consider multiple factors and retain full discretion.
Q: What about evaluator bias or conflicts of interest? A: The Unjournal has rigorous COI policies and transparency standards. All evaluator identities and potential conflicts are disclosed. Editors can weigh this information as they would with any referee report.
Implementation and next steps
You may wish to consider
a full partnership
a partial implementation trial (e.g., start with editorial triage only for 6-12 months; assess outcomes before expanding)
a field-specific trial, limited to specific subfields where Unjournal coverage is strongest
Next steps
Review this proposal with your editorial board
Discuss any questions or concerns with us (contact@unjournal.org, book a chat)
Pilot with a small number of submissions to test the workflow
Formalize this by adding the policy language to your guidelines
Joint promotion and resource-sharing
Last updated
Was this helpful?