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
  • Paths to suggest research
  • 1. Through our survey form
  • 2. For Field Specialists and managers: via Airtable
  • Further guidance
  • Notes for field specialists/Unjournal Team

Was this helpful?

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

Suggesting research (forms, guidance)

PreviousPrioritization ratings: discussionNext"Direct evaluation" track

Last updated 1 year ago

Was this helpful?

Paths to suggest research

Research can be "submitted" by authors () or "suggested" by others. For a walk-through on suggesting research, see example.

There are two main paths for making suggestions: or .

1. Through our

Anyone can suggest research using the survey form at . (Note, if you want to "submit your own research," go to .) Please include the following steps:

Review The Unjournal's Guidelines

Begin by reviewing to get a sense of the research we cover and our priorities. Look for high-quality research that 1) falls within our focus areas and 2) would benefit from (further) evaluation.

When in doubt, we encourage you to suggest the research anyway.

Fill out the Suggestion Form

Navigate to The Unjournal's . Most of the fields here are optional. The fields ask the following information:

  • Who you are: Let us know who is making the suggestion (you can also choose to stay anonymous).

    • If you leave your contact information, you will be eligible for financial "bounties" for strong suggestions.

    • If you are already a member of The Unjournal's team, additional fields will appear for you to link your suggestion to your profile in the Unjournal's database.

  • Research Label: Provide a short, descriptive label for the research you are suggesting. This helps The Unjournal quickly identify the topic at a glance.

  • Research Importance: Explain why the research is important, its potential impact, and any specific areas that require thorough evaluation.

  • Research Link: Include a direct URL to the research paper. The Unjournal prefers research that is publicly hosted, such as in a working paper archive or on a personal website.

  • Peer Review Status: Inform about the peer review status of the research, whether it's unpublished, published without clear peer review, or published in a peer-reviewed journal.

  • "Rate the relevance": This represents your best-guess at how relevant this work is for The Unjournal to evaluate, as a percentile relative to other work we are considering.

  • Research Classification: Choose categories that best describe the research. This helps The Unjournal sort and prioritize suggestions.

  • Field of Interest: Select the outcome or field of interest that the research addresses, such as global health in low-income countries.

2. For Field Specialists and managers: via Airtable

Further guidance

Aside on setting the prioritization ratings: In making your subjective prioritization rating, please consider “What percentile do you think this paper (or project) is relative to the others in our database, in terms of ‘relevance for The UJ to evaluate’?” (Note this is a redefinition; we previously considered these as probabilities.) We roughly plan to commission the evaluation of about 1 in 5 papers in the database, the ‘top 20%’ according to these percentiles. Please don’t consider the “publication status or the “author's propensity to engage” in this rating. We will consider those as separate criteria.

Notes for field specialists/Unjournal Team

Please don’t enter only the papers you think are ‘very relevant’; please enter in all research that you have spent any substantial time considering (more than a couple minutes). If we all do this, we should all aim for our percentile ratings to be approximately normally distributed; evenly spread over the 1-100% range.

Complete all the required fields and submit your suggestion. The Unjournal team will review your submission and consider it for future evaluation. You can reach out to us at with any questions or concerns.

People on our team may find it more useful to suggest research to The Unjournal directl via the Airtable. See for a guide to this. (Please request document permission to access this explanation.)

contact@unjournal.org
this document
here
this video
survey form
https://bit.ly/ujsuggestr
bit.ly/ujsubmitr
The Unjournal's guidelines on What research to target
Suggest Research Survey Form
through our survey form
through Airtable