Institute for Emerging Research
How do we evaluate
We assess each manuscript with an article-specific rubric covering methodology, theory or contribution, evidence and replication, literature, clarity, and research integrity. An external evaluation of 100 independent papers reported 98.67% AUC. The evaluator’s team also reports 100% accuracy on that exercise; accuracy and AUC are different metrics. The cohort and protocol have not been independently audited or reproduced in this project, so this result may not generalize to other papers or future evaluations. An AI assessment is not peer review and cannot guarantee scientific validity or publication. Submissions are not displayed publicly; evaluation may involve external AI providers as explained in our Terms and Conditions. Evaluation is €25 per paper during the launch offer (later €50).
Open access by mission: papers published in the Working Paper Series are freely available to everyone, without reader fees, subscriptions, or paywalls.
How papers are evaluated and ranked
The evaluator builds an article-specific rubric from your discipline and study design. It scores methodology (25%), replication and evidence (25%), theory or contribution (20%), literature (15%), and clarity (15%), while checking citations and research integrity.
These score bands are experimental guidance, not an editorial acceptance decision. If publication reopens, scores of 70/100 or higher may be considered for the Working Paper Series after editorial review and your approval. Scores from 55–69 indicate revisions may help; scores below 55 are not publication-ready. Papers scoring 85 or higher may be considered for the Landmark Series. Publication is currently paused.