Our policies: evaluation & workflow

See links below accessing current policies of The Unjournal, accompanied by discussion and including templates for managers and editors.

Video overview: Two minute overview of our 6-step evaluation process.

The Unjournal Process: How We Evaluate Research

1. Project submission, selection and prioritization

People and organizations submit their own research or suggest research they believe may be high-impact. The Unjournal also directly monitors key sources of research and research agendas. Our team then systematically prioritizes this research for evaluation. See the link below for further details.

Project submission, selection and prioritization

2. Evaluation

1. We choose an evaluation manager for each research paper or project. They commission and compensate expert evaluators to rate and discuss the research, following our evaluation template and guidelines. The original research authors are given a chance to publicly respond before we post these evaluations. See the link below for further details.

Evaluation

3. Communicating results

We make all of this evaluation work public on our PubPub page, along with an evaluation summary. We create DOIs for each element and submit this work to scholarly search engines. We also present a summary and analysis of our evaluation ratings data.

We outline some further details in the link below.

Communicating results

Flowchart

See Mapping evaluation workflow for a full 'flowchart' map of our evaluation workflow

Other approaches

We are also piloting several initiatives that involve a different process. See:

"Pivotal questions"Independent evaluationsMapping evaluation workflow