In a nutshell

The Unjournal does not 'publish research’: organize and fund public journal-independent feedback, quantitative rating, and evaluation of hosted papers and dynamically-presented research projects. We focus on work that is highly relevant to global priorities (especially in economics, social science, and impact evaluation). We aim to make rigorous research more impactful, and impactful research more rigorous.

Goals and intentions

Peer review is great, but academic publication processes are wasteful, slow, and rent-extracting. They discourage innovation and encourage a great deal of effort spent 'gaming the system'. We will both provide an immediate alternative and also offer a bridge to a better system. We aim to make rigorous research more impactful, and impactful research more rigorous.  We focus on research that has the potential for substantial impact on global priorities, particularly in economics, social science, and impact evaluation fields. We will pay evaluators to assess research, discuss it, and give quantitative ratings and predictions.

Project status
Review process
  • Review requested by
    Authors, Non-authors
  • Reviewer selected by
    Editor, service, or community
  • Public interaction
  • Author response
  • Decision
    Other scale or rating
Review policy
  • Review coverage
    Complete paper
  • Reviewer identity known to
    Editor or service
  • Competing interests
    Not included
Social Networks
Review features
  • Manuscript hosting
  • Notes
    • We will pay evaluators.
    • We will ask for quantitative assessments and predictions across several categories, as well as  overall. We aim to benchmark ‘traditional publication outcomes’, to allow evaluations to eventually replace these.
    • We ask evaluators to express their level of confidence (credible interval) over their ratings and predictions
  • Review of code or data
  • Eligible reviewers/editors
    Invited by editors.
  • Tags or badges
  • Number of scholarly outputs commented on
  • Metrics
    We are asking both evaluators and authors for feedback. We have not created a systematic survey for this yet, but we would like to.
  • No comments yet.
  • Add a comment