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
  • Some examples of possible embargos (need approval)

Was this helpful?

Export as PDF
  1. Our policies: evaluation & workflow
  2. Project submission, selection and prioritization

'Conditional embargos' & exceptions

Previous"Applied and Policy" TrackNextFormats, research stage, publication status

Last updated 5 months ago

Was this helpful?

You can request a conditional embargo by emailing us at , or via the submission/response form. Please explain what sort of embargo you are asking for, and why. By default, we'd like Unjournal evaluations to be made public promptly.

However, we may make exceptions in special circumstances particularly

  • for very early-career researchers who are not clearly ,

  • where the research is not obviously already influencing a substantial amount of funding in impact-relevant areas, or substantially influencing policy considerations

If there is an early-career researcher on the authorship team, we may allow authors to "embargo" the publication of the evaluation until a later date. Evaluators (referees) will be informed of this. This date can be contingent, but it should not be indefinite.

For example, we might grant an embargo that lasts until after a PhD/postdoc’s upcoming job market or until after publication in a mainstream journal, with a hard maximum of 14 months. (Of course, embargoes can be ended early at the request of the authors.)

In exceptional circumstances we may consider granting a ""

Some examples of possible embargos (need approval)

Extended time to revise and respond
  1. We will invite 2 or 3 relevant experts to evaluate and rate this work, letting them know about the following embargo

  2. When the evaluations come back, we will ask if you want to respond/revise. If you commit to responding (please let us know your plan within 1 week):

    1. we will make it public that the evaluations are complete, and you have committed to revise and respond.

    2. We will give you 8 weeks to revise the paper, to write a response note how you have revised,

    3. We will give the evaluators additional time to adjust their evaluations and ratings in response to your revision/response

    4. After this we will publish the evaluation package

  3. If you do not commit to responding, we will post the evaluation package

  4. If you are happy with the evaluations, we can post them at any time, by your request.

Rating-dependent embargo, allowing for revision
  1. We will invite 2 or 3 relevant experts to evaluate and rate this work, letting them know about the following embargo

  2. When the evaluations come back..., we will ask if you want to respond.

    1. If all evaluators gave a 4.5 rating or higher as their middle rating on the "" rating (basically suggesting they think it's at the level meriting publication in a top-5+ journal) we will give you 3 weeks to respond before posting the package. (This is roughly our usual policy)

    2. Otherwise (if any rate below 4.5 but none rate it below 3.25) we will give you 8 weeks to revise the paper in response to this, to write a response noting how you have responded. We will give the evaluators further time to adjust their evaluations and ratings in turn, before posting the evaluation package.

    3. If any evaluators rate the paper 'fairly negatively' (below 3.25) on this measure, we will grant a six month embargo from this point, before posting the package. During this time you will also have the opportunity to revise and respond, as in the previous case (case 2.2).

  3. If you are happy with the evaluations, we can post them at any time, by your request.

'Job market embargo': Time, rating and outcome-dependent
  1. We will invite 2 or 3 relevant experts to evaluate and rate this work, letting them know about the following embargo

  2. When the evaluations come back. If all evaluators gave a 4.5 rating or higher as their middle rating on the "" rating (basically suggesting they think it's at the level meriting publication in a top-5+ journal) we will give you 3 weeks to respond before posting the package. (This is roughly our usual policy)

  3. Otherwise we will wait to post the evaluations until June 15, or until all PhD student or Post-doc authors have found a new job (as reported on social media, LinkedIn etc)

    1. During the intervening time, you have the opportunity to revise and respond, and if you do we give the evaluators time to update their evaluations and ratings in turn.

  4. If you are happy with the evaluations, we can post them at any time, by your request.

Note: the above are all exceptions to our regular rules, examples of embargos we might or might not agree to.

contact@unjournal.org
Journal rank tier, normative
Journal rank tier, normative
High professional status/less career-sensitive