# ResearchHub Docs Accelerating scientific research The scientific record is too important to be hidden behind paywalls and in ivory towers. Science should be open: not only for reading, but also for reusing. ResearchHub, and by extension ResearchCoin, are designed to accelerate the pace of scientific research by encouraging academics to interact in a fully open and collaborative manner. These docs will describe the ResearchHub platform, ResearchCoin, the impetus for the creation of both, and the intended impact on the scientific community. # What is ResearchHub? A tool for the open funding, publication, and discussion of scientific research {% embed url="" %} Introduction to ResearchHub {% endembed %} [ResearchHub](https://www.researchhub.com/)’s users are rewarded with [ResearchCoin](https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/researchcoin) (RSC) for publishing, reviewing, criticizing, and collaborating in the open. Once earned, RSC gives users the ability to fund scientific research, request services, tip other users, and gain voting rights within community decision making. ResearchHub and ResearchCoin are maintained and improved through a partnership between the [ResearchHub Foundation](https://www.researchhub.foundation/) and Researchhub Technologies, Inc. - Together, we are a collection of skeptical, yet optimistic individuals who want to accelerate the pace of science. We think the incentives of scientific funding and publishing are broken, and that blockchain can help. {% hint style="info" %} If you have any questions or would like to start a discussion about ResearchHub, please visit our [community Discord](http://discord.gg/researchhub-foundation) {% endhint %} {% embed url="" %} # The Problem Overview of the legacy scientific economy The modern economic model for scientific research is antiquated. A simplified description is as follows: Funders distribute capital to scientists who conduct research projects and share the results as scientific papers published within an academic journal. In a perfect world funders, scientists, and publishers would work together to seamlessly capitalize, produce, and publicize scientific research. In reality, all three groups are independent agents whose actions are influenced by their individual economic incentives. | Group | Role | Incentive | | ---------- | --------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | | Funder | Distribute capital to research projects | To fund high-quality research | | Scientists | Capital -> new knowledge | To conduct high-quality research | | Journals | Curate + distribute new knowledge | To generate revenue | The flow of capital that results from the use of research grants as a funding mechanism unintentionally creates a misaligned incentive structure that result in tremendous waste for the system as a whole. # Research grants incentivize waste "Every hour a scientist spends trying to raise funds is an hour lost from important thought and research" - Isaac Asimov Funders' grant-making decisions are driven by two overarching goals: * Sponsoring research that aligns with their individual organizational mission * Awarding grants to scientists and projects that will provide a safe return on investment Funding organizations invite scientists to apply for research grants and distribute financial awards based on the perceived quality of a grant application towards achieving the aforementioned goals. Typically, funders dedicate upwards of 5% of their operating budgets towards administering this process. Determining if a project aligns with an organization’s mission is relatively straightforward. Unfortunately, no objective metrics exist to judge the value of the scientific knowledge produced by any given research output. # Lack of accurate metrics "Today I wouldn't get an academic job. It's as simple as that. I don't think I would be regarded as productive enough." – Peter Higgs The main problem of academic science can be summed up in one question: "How does one judge the quality of a scientific researcher?\ \ Put yourself in the shoes of any individual or organization that has prioritized investing in scientific research - you have a $1m grant earmarked for quantum gravity research and two different physicists have applied for the funding. How would you go about choosing which lab will produce the most scientific bang for your buck?\ \ Funders have traditionally relied on bibliometrics to help guide their grant-making decisions. To determine if a project is likely to produce a safe return on investment, they judge the productivity of the applying researcher, and the impact of their previous publications. * **Productivity**: A quantitative metric of the number of publications a researcher has produced * **Impact**: A qualitative measure of a publication’s importance, based on the number of citations it generates. The most commonly used impact metric is the “*impact factor*” of the academic journal in which a paper is published. “Impact factor” is calculated based on the number of times a journal is cited by academic publications within the previous two years. It has been well-established that the use of productivity and impact are not effective tools to objectively determine the best recipient of grant funding. A 2017 study found that there was no agreement between National Institute of Health reviewers in their qualitative or quantitative evaluation of grant-applications. > *“It appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant.”* - [Pier et al., 2017](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29507248/) # Unintended consequences of modern grant funding "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" - Goodhart's law The pervasive use of bibliometrics in academia results in an incentive structure that encourages scientists to be “productive” and produce “impactful” research. The more a scientist publishes in high-impact factor journals, the more successful they are considered, and the more likely they are to receive grant funding. The phrase “publish-or-perish” was coined to describe this ecosystem. There are several unintended consequences that result from grant-givers’ dependence on inaccurate quality metrics to make funding decisions: * **Competition:** The heavily competitive landscape for grant funding pits researchers in the same field against one another. Instead of incentivizing the world’s leaders in a certain topic to collaborate on findings, scientists are compelled to protect their ideas and experimental data until publication for fear of being “scooped”. This lack of communication can also lead to duplication of research studies. Multiple groups work on the same problem in parallel, with only the first to publish receiving credit. Competition among researchers is incredibly wasteful when you consider the source of funding is typically a non-profit or public organization. * **Reporting Bias**: Academic journals want to publish studies that will result in a large number of citations in order to bolster their impact-factor rankings. This causes scientists to preferentially address research questions they believe will result in highly-cited studies. * **Replication Crisis**: There have been estimates that up to 50% of biomedical research studies published in high-impact factor journals are unable to be replicated. Because replication studies are rarely cited, researchers have very little incentive to pursue them. For the same reason, disappointing or negative results are much less likely to reach publication. * **Artificial Demand for Publication in For-Profit Academic Journals**: A large portion of the journals that are considered “high impact-factor” operate under a for-profit business model. These journals played an important role in the scientific ecosystem before the internet, but modern technology has erased their value proposition. Despite this, they maintain a tremendous demand for publication and are able to thrive due to grant-giver’s dependence on using “impact-factor” as a quality metric. * **Scientific Misconduct**: There is evidence that results are less trustworthy within fields of science where funding is scarce. Competition for funding increases publication pressure which results in an increased rate of false-positive publications. In addition, the rate at which scientific papers are retracted due to misconduct is increasing faster than the overall rate of retractions. # The business model of for-profit academic publishers "Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers" - Alexandra Elbakyan The advent of the internet made for-profit scientific journals obsolete. In every other industry, publishers are required to invest significant capital to produce their content and collect revenue from advertisements and/or subscription fees from those who consume the content. Because the majority of funding for content production in academic science comes from industrial or public sources, for-profit publishers are not responsible for producing their own content. In fact, they are able to charge publication fees to content producers and subscription fees to content consumers. For-profit academic journals have been found to charge up to four-times the amount of non-profit publishers. Submission fee ranges from $150-$5,000 USD, and subscription fees quickly add up. In 2012, Harvard University paid over $16,000,000 to academic publishers. Typically, these publishers operate at 30%+ profit margin. The largest of which, Elsevier, is responsible for publishing over 24% of scientific papers and collects over $3,000,000,000 in revenue every year. In 2009, Elsevier charged institutions an average of $3,100,000 for access to all of its publications. This exploitative economic niche is made possible by grant-givers dependence on poor quality metrics. Most importantly, the demand for publication in for-profit academic journals restricts access to publicly funded scientific knowledge. It is not financially feasible for the average person to afford access to the studies published in these journals. These ethically questionable practices prevent the grand majority of the world’s population from learning from cutting-edge scientific research. # Infrastructural deficiencies "We are all now connected by the internet, like neurons in a giant brain.” – Stephen Hawking # Limitations of physical laboratories The academic institution was initially formed as a conduit to bring together people to learn and share knowledge. Much of the utility of the traditional laboratory setting was due to its ability to unite scholars who were interested in collaborating within the same field of study. There would be nothing inherently limiting about the traditional laboratory in a world where collaboration took precedence over competition. Unfortunately, the incentive structure of the current scientific economy causes the laboratory to act as a physical silo that limits the sharing of ideas, criticisms, and resources. A study in the U.K. found that the average biological sciences laboratory contains six members. Assuming ideal communication between the members of a lab, this means that any methodology proposed, experimental data gathered, or conclusion drawn would only receive the pre-publication feedback and criticisms of six people on a day-to-day basis. In addition, underfunded laboratories do not have access to the scientific instruments of larger institutions. These instruments are not in use 100% of the time, but there is little infrastructure to facilitate larger institutions renting instrument time to smaller research groups. # Outdated format of research outputs The predominant format for communicating research outputs is the scientific paper. This structure was developed during the scientific revolution and is responsible for bringing the necessary order required for scientists to validate and build upon one another’s findings. The typical of a scientific paper employs the following structure: * **Abstract**: A short summary of the entire paper * **Introduction**: The relevant background required to interpret the paper’s findings * **Methods**: A description of the methodology employed to obtain the results * **Results**: The experimental data discovered during the study represented in figures * **Discussion**: The author’s interpretation of the significance of the results Scientific research has grown in complexity to the point that this format no longer serves its intended purpose. There are estimates that over 50% of studies do not include the methodological detail required for independent replication. With the ever-increasing complexity of research methods and statistical analysis techniques, this is not surprising. Traditional text and pictures will never do the information captured by an f-MRI or genomic sequencing justice. Furthermore, the narrative nature of the scientific paper is severely flawed because it inherently introduces an element of bias. Even the most ethical researcher is unable to avoid the bias inherent to human cognition when presented with the challenge of finding a pattern within large amounts of information. By definition the results section contains hand-picked experiments meant to derive signal from noise to fit a compelling story worthy of publication in a high-impact factor journal. Fortunately, researchers have recognized the need to improve upon the traditional structure of the scientific paper: * In 2015, Dr. Lawrence Rajendran founded ScienceMatters.io, an online, open-access journal for stand-alone observations. * A 2018 pre-print from Hartgerink and van Zelst calls for an “as-you-go” approach to scholarly publishing, where researchers share modular collections of research outputs in a chronological fashion that’s more representative of the research cycle. # Barriers to participation Making meaningful contributions to a field of research is difficult and requires extensive training. The scientific community has adopted a meritocracy of academic credentials to ensure that the limited financial and educational resources earmarked for research are distributed to members of the scientific community who have the expertise to effectively utilize them. This academic hierarchy serves a necessary role that helps maintain a productive research ecosystem. Unfortunately, like most social hierarchies it also marginalizes certain socioeconomic groups and puts restrictions on who can learn from and participate in the scientific community. It results in: * **Reduced Diversity of Thought**: The demographics of advanced degree holders in STEM does not accurately mirror the global population. In addition, by requiring formal academic training, STEM research makes it difficult for experts in professions outside of academia to contribute to scientific discussion. For example, It is not hard to imagine how a life-long farmer without academic credentials could contribute to advances in the field of botany if given the opportunity and incentive. * **Reduced Size of the Scientific Community**: For many, the decade of formal training required to receive an advanced STEM degree and participate in research is not an option. Science should follow in the footsteps of the open-source code community and leverage the internet to provide an avenue for anyone to teach themselves the minimum required skills to contribute. While the academic-hierarchy of research science serves an important purpose, it ultimately holds the community back from reaching its full potential by leaving sources of potential creativity and contribution untapped. Modern technology has made the academic hierarchy redundant, and it is time the research community adopt a more inclusive meritocracy to govern scientific expertise. # User Support We're here to help! **Need assistance?** Submit a support ticket and follow all required steps. Our team will review your submission and respond within 72 hours. For any additional questions or inquiries, please email us at . **How to delete your profile**: We need to verify your identify in order to delete your author profile. Please open a support ticket and we will assist you.

Submit a Support Ticket

# Links Useful links to learn more about ResearchHub, ResearchCoin and the ResearchHub Foundation #### Websites * ResearchHub Platform: * ResearchHub Foundation: #### Socials * X (Twitter): * LinkedIn: * Instagram: * Tiktok: * YouTube: * GitHub: * Discord: #### ResearchCoin * Coingecko: * Snapshot (Governance): # Mission, Vision, Values The why, what, and how of ResearchHub {% embed url="" %} A testimonial from the ResearchHub Foundation {% endembed %} ### Our mission To accelerate the pace of scientific research. ### Our vision We are a community of people who understand that the world needs a new way to go about creating and disseminating scientific knowledge. We envision a modern infrastructure for academia that: * Eliminates inefficiencies * Lowers barriers to participation in scientific research * Uses evidence-based incentives which encourage collaboration * Emphasizes the universal communication of science to all audiences ### Our values In order accomplish our mission and realize this vision, the ResearchHub team will be guided by the following values: 🔬 **Always act in the best interest of the scientific community** * Create opportunities around the globe * Expand access and education * Promote validity and reproducibility * Accelerate scientific progress 🤔 **Seek truth** * Skepticism is a virtue * Focus on evidence-based research * Avoid subjective content (opinion pieces, press releases, etc.) * Focus on the mission, don’t engage in social or political activism 🧠 **Self-awareness** * Be mindful of the incentives created by $RSC * Understand our own biases - as individuals and as an organization * Be flexible and keep an open mind when forming opinions or making decisions 🌍 **Freedom and responsibility** * Top talent in every seat * Perpetuate freedom + trust in team members to move quickly and make the best decisions * Emphasize personal accountability 🚀 **Be bold and learn from your mistakes** * Follow your heart and pursue the opportunities you believe in * Do not be afraid to take calculated risks * If a bet fails, try to learn why it failed and openly share your new insight with the entire team # Journals and Hubs This page describes the Journals and Hubs sections on ResearchHub ResearchHub provides two sections to organize, share, and collaborate on research, Journals and Hubs. These sections help users navigate content and engage with the community more effectively. # Journals Browse peer-reviewed journals and preprint servers on ResearchHub The Journals section on ResearchHub aggregates peer-reviewed journals and preprint servers, providing a centralized platform for exploring scientific literature.

Journals section on ResearchHub

The Journals section helps streamlines access to a wide range of peer-reviewed articles and preprints. By integrating preprints, ResearchHub promotes the rapid dissemination of research, allowing users to timely discuss and peer review research studies. # ResearchHub Journal APCs should go to scientists - that's why we pay our peer reviewers ResearchHub launched its own journal with a novel incentive structure. The journal embraces open-access principles, ensuring that all articles are freely available to the public. The journal guarantees prospective authors to receive immediate feedback from the ResearchHub community and a fast turnaround time for publication. A large share of the APC will go toward rewarding peer reviewers for their work.
# Hubs Hubs are collections of papers that are related to a specific topic
ResearchHub has created Hubs, collaborative spaces organized around research fields, allowing users to connect, share knowledge, and work together. Hubs provide a community-centric approach to organizing research discussions and collaborations. Users that publish original content on ResearchHub can select one or multiple Hubs to host their papers.\ \ Hubs have been initially pre-seeded by using [OpenAlex concept tags](https://docs.openalex.org/api-entities/concepts). This means that any OpenAlex concept is automatically added to ResearchHub as it's own unique Hub. Selected Hubs on ResearchHub are curated by [Editors](/researchhub-foundation/programs-and-initiatives/editorial-program), fostering scientific discussion and moderating their respective Hubs. # Product Features An overview of how ResearchHub works ResearchHub is designed to accelerate the pace of scientific discovery by empowering researchers with tools that foster collaboration, streamline communication, and reward contributions to the scientific community. This section provides an overview of the platform's key features, such writing in the notebook, publishing a post, performing a peer review and earning grants. # Fund Funders can distribute funding, and researchers can receive funding for scientific research. On ResearchHub's [Fund](https://www.researchhub.com/fund/grants) tab, **funders** can upload a request for proposal (RFP) with a budget to encourage applications around a specific research field. **Researchers** can submit proposals to RFPs or upload general proposals for crowdfunding.
Cover image
Funders & Donors Guide/files/Qkum7j1niuejZrHvCCqH/pages/KL7MySe70zy89D3rT6Ku
Funding Recipients Guide/files/Qkum7j1niuejZrHvCCqH/pages/KMwPdFPyjk7nZA4bfXPD
ResearchHub Endowment/files/Qkum7j1niuejZrHvCCqH/pages/8OAnRWbTI22260a9cEWy
# Funders & Donors ResearchHub makes it easy to support science, with powerful benefits for funders. ResearchHub enables funders, donors, and philanthropists to support scientific research globally through our Fund tab. All projects funded on ResearchHub flows through a pipeline that promotes transparency and reproducibility: 1) public preregistration, 2) open peer review, and 3) visible tracking of results. By funding studies at the preregistration stage — before experiments begin — funders gain visibility into research design, progress, and outcomes from start to finish. #### **Advantages of Funding on ResearchHub** 1. **Earn High-Yield Funding Credits**. With our Endowments feature, all ResearchCoin (RSC) held in your account automatically generates Funding Credits. 2. **Engage a large pool of global researchers**. All Funding Opportunities posted on ResearchHub are advertised to our global user base. 3. **Get help with targeted outreach**. Our LLM powered Expert Finder helps you identify qualified domain researchers to request applications or peer reviews. 4. **Enhanced reproducibility**. All project proposals on ResearchHub are required to preregister their study design, promoting reproducibility and allowing you to distribute research funding with confidence. 5. **Open, fast peer review**. ResearchHub incentivizes peer reviews in RSC to ensure quick turnaround (<10 days) and high-quality (all reviews vetted by editorial team). This enables funders to vet proposals quickly, and gives applicants opportunities to improve their study design, strengthening the science from conception. 6. **Low overhead costs**. With overhead costs capped at 0-10%, more of your funding goes straight to the science. 7. **Flexible payment options**. Funders can pay via DAF, ResearchCoin, Credit Card, or Apple Pay. 8. **Monthly funder updates**. Researchers are incentivized to provide monthly progress updates, keeping funders in the loop on the projects they support. 9. **Expedited funding disbursement**. ResearchHub provides rapid disbursement of funds, saving you time and getting research projects off the ground faster. 10. **Tax benefits**. Funding projects on ResearchHub qualifies as tax-deductible for eligible 501(c)(3) organizations. 11. **Crowdfunding**. Our community can help crowdfund, stretching your funding budget further. #### **Why Traditional Research Funding Falls Short** * A significant portion of published scientific findings cannot be independently reproduced. * Many funded studies, especially those with negative results, are never reported publicly. * Opaque reporting and misaligned incentives contribute to wasted funding and duplicated work. #### The ResearchHub Funding Model * Researchers publicly post a preregistration describing their study design, methods, hypotheses, and timelines. * Peer scientists openly review and critique the preregistration before funding. * Funders support research at this early stage, before results are known. * Study progress and final results, positive or negative, are published openly and permanently linked to the funded preregistration. #### What are the Fees? ResearchHub takes a 9% fee on any amounts funded to proposals. Why 9%? Studies suggest a 13-35% transaction cost from traditional funding avenues \[[Herbert et al, 2013](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23793700/), [Gluckman, 2012](https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-10/pmcsa-Which-science-to-fund-time-to-review-peer-review.pdf)] {% hint style="info" %} Reach out to to assist with uploading your Request for Proposal or browse [active preregistrations](https://www.researchhub.com/fund/grants). {% endhint %} # Funding Recipients A guide for researchers applying for funding on ResearchHub ResearchHub is a platform that allows anyone to *directly* fund preregistered scientific studies. Our goal is to promote the creation of open, reproducible and impactful research. Our process is much simpler than applying for traditional research grants. We ask applicants to submit a 2-4 page preregistration (proposal) that includes: * Background * Hypothesis * Experimental methods * Plan for statistical analysis * Budget {% hint style="info" %} \[REQUIRED] In order to receive funds, please ensure your identity is verified and your ORCID account is linked to your ResearchHub profile. {% endhint %} ### **How Does ResearchHub Funding Work?** 1. **Browse** [**Funding Opportunities**](https://www.researchhub.com/fund) 1. Find a Funding Opportunity that fits within the expertise of your lab. 2. *If you can’t find a relevant Funding Opportunity, don’t worry! You can still submit a standalone proposal for crowdfunding in the "proposals" tab.* 2. **Submit Your Proposal** 1. Click "Submit an Application" and create a new proposal. 2. Clearly outline your study using the provided template. 3. Include relevant topics/keywords to enhance discoverability. 4. Specify funding goal 1. Keep in mind, smaller goals are more feasible to crowdfund so we recommend starting with the most essential experiments. 5. Select your affiliated institution's foundation to ensure your donors receive a tax deduction! 1. Include the name of your lab and department so we know who to send the funds to. 3. **Open Peer Review** 1. Peers publicly critique and provide feedback on your public proposal. 2. Peer review **does not determine funding** but offers context for potential funders and helps you enhance your study's design and methodology. 3. Peer Review is completed in under 14 days. 4. **Wait for the Study to Get Funded** 1. Funders and other members of the ResearchHub community can crowdfund the study with ResearchCoin. 2. The fundraise amount must be met for the funding proposal to complete and have the funds route to your university. 3. If the funding goal is not met by the deadline, the funds will be reimbursed to the crowdfunders. 5. **Crowdfunding Completed** 1. After the proposal has been successfully funded, ResearchHub and our 501(c)(3) non-profit partner, [Endaoment](https://endaoment.org/?ref=blog.researchhub.foundation), will ensure the funds are transferred to your university as a cash donation to be accessible by your lab. ### FAQs
How complicated is it to submit a preregistration? The process is designed to be simple and straightforward, typically taking only minutes to complete.
If the proposal I post is public, will I get scooped? The proposals published on ResearchHub all come with a DOI (a digital identifier) and public date to ensure you are credited appropriately. The ideal proposal should have sufficient experimental plans and planned analyses for a third party researcher to independently replicate your work. We understand that some researchers may be hesitant to share this level of detail in the open, and in those cases you should share as much information as you’re comfortable sharing.
Does my proposal have to pass peer review to get funded? No, peer review on ResearchHub is solely for suggesting improvements for you as the researcher and to provide funders with context from experts in the field. Peer review does not determine funding eligibility. If you find that your peer reviews have particularly helpful suggestions, we encourage you to revise and update your work as you see fit.
Do I have to implement the peer reviewers’ changes? No, you are not required to implement the suggested changes. However, if the feedback improves the rigor or quality of your work, it’s recommended to consider them. Addressing peer review suggestions is a great opportunity for you to signal rigor to potential funders – however, none of the suggestions from peer reviewers are mandatory to be addressed.
Can I update my proposal if peer reviewers have helpful suggestions? Yes! We believe that peer review is most useful before experiments are completed, when there’s still time to adjust plans. We encourage researchers to update their experimental plans according to feedback from peer reviewers, as the researchers see fit – none of the suggestions from peer reviewers are mandatory to be addressed. Updating and republishing your proposal will not affect any existing funding contributions, comments, peer reviews, or other interactions.
Does my institution need to be able to handle cryptocurrency? No. All funds are transferred to your University's nonprofit foundation as a **cash donation**. Our nonprofit partner, [Endaoment](https://endaoment.org/), converts the crowdfunded donations into cash which is then transferred directly to your University as a standard gift. \ \ *Note: International applicants should verify in advance that their institution has a US 501(c)(3) intermediary to receive funds.*
How does my institution receive the funds? Funds are managed and transferred via your University's Foundation, facilitated through our partnership with [Endaoment](https://endaoment.org/?ref=blog.researchhub.foundation). Endaoment converts the crowdfunded ResearchCoin donations into cash. This funding is then transferred directly to your University as a standard gift, streamlining financial processes and compliance. You will not have to work with your grants office as these funds are sent as donations with the note you provide in your proposal.\ \ *Note: International applicants should verify in advance that their institution has a US 501(c)(3) intermediary to receive funds.*
Are there any reporting requirements? No, these funds are submitted as gifts meaning that the applicants are **not required** to provide any specific reporting. \ \ We strongly believe that open science practices lead to maximally reproducible research. As such, we provide optional incentives rather than mandatory requirements. Any funded researcher who chooses to optionally share a brief monthly update will receive $50 as a thank you for participating in open science.
Do I have to be in the U.S. to take advantage of the crowdfunding feature? No. We encourage researchers internationally to submit their proposals for funding consideration.
Who should be the author of the proposal? Anyone within the lab can be the primary author, and can include other relevant authors.
Can I alter the funding goal while my proposal is live? Please contact the ResearchHub team for assistance on a case by case basis. We may ask that you share a revised experimental plan and budget if the funding goal needs to be changed significantly. You should tag and notify any funders who contributed to your proposal.
What happens after the proposal deadline? If successfully funded, your funds will be donated to your University nonprofit as a gift designated for your lab. \ \ If your proposal does not meet the funding threshold by the deadline, the funds will be returned to the donors and you are free to submit a new or revised submission.
Who can I contact with questions? Please contact for any questions. You may also attend our weekly information sessions to meet with our outreach and editorial team. * **Tuesdays and Fridays**: 11:00 AM PST * **Wednesdays**: 4:00 PM PST * **Meeting link**: [https://meet.google.com/jww-ndus-kcr](https://meet.google.com/jww-ndus-kcr?ref=blog.researchhub.foundation)

# ResearchHub Endowment Turn the RSC in your ResearchHub account into a perpetual science funding vehicle. ### Summary ResearchHub Endowment distributes *Funding Credits* to ResearchCoin (RSC) holders. Funding Credits track the price of RSC but can ***only*** be used to fund research—the more RSC you hold, the more science you fund. No action required: RSC held in a ResearchHub account automatically earns Funding Credits. ### How It Works 1. **Hold ResearchCoin** — Deposit RSC into your ResearchHub account. Principal is revocable. 2. **Earn Credits Automatically** — The RSC you hold earns yield as Funding Credits. Credits are distributed daily. 3. **Fund Science** — Donate the Funding Credits you earned to fund preregistered research proposals. > **Frictionless UX:** RSC in a ResearchHub account automatically earns Funding Credits. No action, no lockups, no gas fees. ### Practical Example: $1M Endowment **Traditional grant:** You give $1M once. It funds research. Then it’s gone. **ResearchHub Endowment:** 1. Deposit $1M in ResearchCoin. 2. Year 1: Fund \~$236K of research (at 30% participation scenario). 3. Year 10: Funded \~$1.8M total in cumulative research funding. 4. **Principal: Still yours.** *Note: Example assumes the USD value of RSC remains unchanged.* > **One-time capital → Perpetual funding.** This transforms a one-time gift into a perpetual funding vehicle. ### Where Does Yield Come From? Your yield is determined by the following formula:

Your Yield = RSC Emissions × (Your Held RSC / Total Held RSC on Platform)

#### RSC Emissions The protocol emits new RSC at a decaying rate on an annual basis. Starting at 9.5M RSC in Year 1, emissions halve every 64 years. The emission formula is:

E(t) = 9,500,000 / 2^(t/64)

| **Time** | **Annual RSC Emission** | | -------------- | ----------------------- | | Year 1 (t=0) | 9,500,000 RSC | | Year 5 (t=4) | 9,097,231 RSC | | Year 10 (t=9) | 8,525,000 RSC | | Year 25 (t=24) | 7,325,501 RSC | #### Self-Balancing Market Dynamics The rate of Funding Credit yield depends on the proportion of total circulating supply held within ResearchHub at any given time. When more RSC is held on the platform, the annual return rate decreases. When less RSC is held, yields are higher. ### Yield Across Participation Scenarios Annual return varies with network participation. Yields are represented as a return rate on the principal per year. | **% Supply Held** | **Year 1 Yield** | **Year 5 Yield** | **Year 25 Yield** | **Benchmark** | | -------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | | 15% | 47.2% | 35.4% | 14.5% | Low participation | | **30%** | **23.6%** | **17.7%** | **7.3%** | **Estimated average** | | 70% | 10.1% | 7.6% | 3.1% | High participation | ### Yield Multipliers Yield rates increase the longer you hold RSC in your ResearchHub Endowment. | **Time Held** | **Weight Multiplier** | **Relative Yield Boost** | | ------------- | --------------------- | ------------------------ | | 0-30 days | 1x | Baseline | | 30-180 days | 1.05x | +5% | | 180-365 days | 1.1x | +10% | | 365+ days | 1.25x | +25% | ### Credit Distribution Cadence Funding Credits are distributed on a daily basis. Each day, a proportional share of the annual emission is calculated and credited to all eligible RSC holders based on their balance at the time of distribution. This daily cadence ensures a smooth, predictable flow of Funding Credits and allows holders to begin funding research almost immediately after depositing RSC. #### Detailed Example (30% Participation) **Year 1** | **Participant** | **RSC Held** | **Annual Return** | **Annual Credits** | | ----------------- | ------------ | ----------------- | ------------------ | | Institution A | 10.0M | 23.6% | 2,360,412 RSC | | All Other Holders | 30.2M | 23.6% | 7,139,588 RSC | | **Total Pool** | **40.2M** | | **9,500,000 RSC** | **Year 25** | **Participant** | **RSC Held** | **Annual Return** | **Annual Credits** | | ----------------- | ------------ | ----------------- | ------------------ | | Institution A | 10.0M | 7.3% | 726,686 RSC | | All Other Holders | 90.8M | 7.3% | 6,598,816 RSC | | **Total Pool** | **100.8M** | | **7,325,501 RSC** | ### Technical Parameters Current implementation parameters: | **Parameter** | **Value** | | -------------------- | -------------------------------- | | Emission formula | E(t) = 9,500,000 / 2^(t/64) | | Year 0 emission | 9,500,000 RSC | | Year 10 emission | \~8,525,000 RSC | | Halving period | 64 years | | Reward type | Non-transferable Funding Credits | | Distribution cadence | Daily | # Publish How to publish a preprint or journal publication to ResearchHub On [ResearchHub](https://www.researchhub.com/), users can publish a formal manuscript, preprint or smaller research note. User can potentially earn RSC tips by sharing various kinds of scientific content. To get started, head to the top left portion of [ResearchHub](https://www.researchhub.com/)'s homepage, click on the `+New` button, and decide what kind of content you would like to publish!

Publishing research content on ResearchHub

### Submit your paper #### ResearchHub Journal Submit your research article for formal publication in the [ResearchHub Journal](/researchhub-foundation/programs-and-initiatives/researchhub-journal-rhj) with an average time of 10 days for peer review. Support ResearchHub's work in redefining the publishing incentive structure, with a large share of your APC going toward rewarding peer reviewers for their work. This can be done directly through the `RH Journal` tab or via the `Submit your paper` button.

ResearchHub Journal - In Review, Published and About subsections

#### Preprint Publish your preprint on ResearchHub and get featured on the homepage. Receive immediate feedback from the community and potentially earn RSC tokens based on engagement through the platform's incentive system. #### Already existing papers ResearchHub automatically surfaces existing preprints and post-publication manuscript. {% hint style="success" %} Try searching for any scientific paper on ResearchHub through the search bar. You DO NOT have to go through "Submit Your Paper" flow to be able to view your existing papers. {% endhint %} ### Write a Research Note A research note on ResearchHub is a versatile way for researchers to share knowledge, engage with the community, and contribute to the platform. These posts can take various forms, including summaries of research papers, reviews of published studies, announcements about new findings, or technical blogs. # Notebook Collaborate in real-time on ResearchHub ResearchHub's notebook allows users to collaboratively draft content and publish it directly within our web application. To view this feature, click the `Notebook` button in the left sidebar.
## Sidebar Information ### Work Type #### Original Research Work: Publish original research * **Authors**: Choose an author. * **Topics**: Select relevant keywords. #### Proposal: Publish a funding proposal * **Authors**: Choose an author. * **Topics**: Select relevant keywords. * **Funding Goal**: Specify crowdfunding target. * **Non-profit**: Select an affiliated Non-profit Foundation. * **Details**: Include your lab and university department. #### Grant: Publish a request for proposal (RFP) with a budget * **Short Description**: Provide 1-2 sentences outlining RFP's intention. * **Organization**: Enter your organization's name. * **Contacts**: Select affiliated contacts. * **Topics**: Select relevant keywords. * **Funding Amount**: Specify funding offer. * **Application Deadline**: Set RFP submission deadline. ### Publish to ResearchHub Publish seamlessly straight onto ResearchHub, and edit and iterate post-publication, where the scientific community can provide feedback on the content you posted.
# Peer Reviews How to peer review content on ResearchHub Any type of post on ResearchHub is eligible to be peer reviewed on ResearchHub. To do so, navigate to the `Reviews` tab on the paper menu.
In the Reviews tab, you’ll be prompted to evaluate various aspects of the paper's quality and provide a numerical score as part of your review. * **Overall** - please share your overall impressions of the paper. * **Introduction**: Does the introduction clearly articulate the research question and provide adequate context? Is the study's significance within the field convincingly established? * **Methods**: Does the study design test the authors' hypothesis? Are the methods described in enough detail for independent replication? * **Results**: Were the study's finding analyzed and interpreted reasonably? Is the resulting data open and auditable? * **Discussion**: Do the results support the authors' conclusions? Are there any alternative interpretations of the study's findings that the authors should have considered? # Bounties Create and earn bounties for scientific content By creating a bounty, you are able to financially incentivize other ResearchHub users to create specific kinds of content that you are interested in. For example: * If you want someone to peer review your new manuscript, place a `Peer Review` bounty on it * If you want help with a new method in your lab, create an `Answer to Question` bounty There are two ways to create bounty on ResearchHub. You can add a bounty to any kind of content, be that a post that you published on ResearchHub as a question to be answered, or a comment that you made under another user's post for clarification.
ResearchHub’s bounty feature targets specific individuals or groups with relevant expertise to address a research challenge or complete a task.
# Reputation (REP) Every user on ResearchHub has a research field-specific reputation (REP) score that unlocks access to moderation features. REP is earned over time by sharing, summarizing, curating, and discussing the scientific papers shared within ResearchHub. Additionally REP is retrospectively calculated for any researchers who has claimed their research publications by verifying their identity on ResearchHub. REP empowers the users who demonstrate their dedication to openly sharing scientific research on ResearchHub with the tools to nurture and develop our growing community. {% hint style="info" %} (07/2024) Check out our extensive post on REP v2:\ {% endhint %}
# Content Guidelines ResearchHub is a platform for rigorous, high-quality scientific discourse with the goal of accelerating the pace of science. To support this mission, we maintain standards not only around *what* is posted, but also around rigor, relevance, and information density. Researchers have limited time. Content on ResearchHub should therefore contribute meaningfully to scientific understanding, discussion, or progress. Moderation, combined with community ranking mechanisms (e.g., upvotes/downvotes), helps ensure users can easily surface high-signal contributions. To maintain a productive and trustworthy environment, all users are expected to follow the guidelines below. *** ### Encouraged Content We welcome content that advances scientific discussion and understanding, including: * **Civil, truth-seeking dialogue**\ Respectful skepticism is encouraged; intellectual honesty and good-faith debate are core values. * **Scientific questions**\ Thoughtful questions that invite analysis, clarification, or further investigation. * **Constructive scientific discourse**\ Suggestions, critiques, and feedback that move conversations forward productively. * **Proper attribution and citation**\ Linking to and crediting relevant prior work, data, or ideas. * **Feedback on written research**\ Including preprints and peer-reviewed publications. * **Expert context and insight**\ Contributions that add domain-specific knowledge or clarify technical points. * **Science-related competitions and challenges** * **Scientific surveys**\ Including links to reputable and trustworthy external tools or platforms. * **Newly generated data or analyses** * **Requests for academic or consulting services** * **Community-funded research proposals**\ Proposing studies or experiments for community funding. * **Educational content**\ Explaining scientific concepts, methodologies, or DeSci-related projects and ideas. * **Well-defined bounties**\ With clear scope, expectations, and attainable completion criteria. *** ### Prohibited Content The following content is not allowed on ResearchHub: * **Harassment or abuse**\ Rude, disparaging, inflammatory, or disrespectful remarks toward other users. * **Non-constructive participation**\ Low-effort comments that add no new information or insight (e.g., “Thanks,” “+1,” “I agree”), or off-topic replies. * **Low-quality or low-rigor content**\ Submissions that lack scientific grounding, coherence, or contain obvious errors. * **Spam or self-promotion**\ Content created primarily to advertise a product, service, or external platform. * **Undisclosed AI-generated content**\ Content that is more than 10% AI-generated without clear disclosure or attribution. * **Manipulation of platform mechanics**\ Including upvote rings or coordinated behavior intended to game visibility or rewards. * **Memes**\ Memes are not permitted on the ResearchHub platform (they may be shared on Discord). * **Plagiarism or copyright violations**\ Including copying text, ideas, or uploading copyrighted PDFs without permission or citation. * **Non-English content**\ At this time, ResearchHub supports English-language posts only to maintain a unified platform. * **Impersonation or misrepresentation**\ Claiming to be another individual or falsely representing identity or credentials. * **Social or political activism**\ ResearchHub exists to advance science, not promote political or ideological movements. *** ### Enforcement This list is not exhaustive. Content that violates the spirit or letter of these guidelines may be flagged, removed, or result in temporary or permanent account restrictions at the discretion of the ResearchHub Moderation Team. # ResearchHub Team The team behind ResearchHub * [**Brian Armstrong**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/barmstrong/), Co-founder and CEO * [**Patrick Joyce**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-joyce-396b953b/), Co-founder and COO * [**Kobe Attias**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/kobe-attias-5a9a9421/), Lead Developer * [**Tyler Diorio**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/tyler-diorio-351325aa/), Chief of Staff * [**Taki Koutsomitis**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/taki-k/), Founding Engineer # What is ResearchCoin? An overview of ResearchCoin (RSC) ResearchCoin (RSC) is a reward token anyone can earn by sharing, curating, and discussing academic science within ResearchHub. The number of RSC earned for any given action is proportional to how valuable the community perceives that action to be. Within ResearchHub, RSC is used to properly recognize and reward users who help create value within our community, and in doing so, bring the scientific community together. #### Overview * Token name: ResearchCoin * Token symbol: RSC * Token type: ERC-20 * Total supply: 1,000,000,000 RSC * Initial circulating supply: 7.5M RSC * Maximum rate at which community circulating supply will increase: 50M RSC per year * Smart contract address (ETH): [0xd101dcc414f310268c37eeb4cd376ccfa507f571](https://etherscan.io/token/0xd101dcc414f310268c37eeb4cd376ccfa507f571) * Smart contract address (Base): [0xfbb75a59193a3525a8825bebe7d4b56899e2f7e1](https://basescan.org/token/0xfbb75a59193a3525a8825bebe7d4b56899e2f7e1) #### ResearchCoin on Base The ResearchHub Foundation has deployed ResearchCoin on [Base](https://www.base.org/) to enable cheaper and faster transactions. Base is an Ethereum layer-2 network that benefits from the security of the Ethereum Mainnet, while offering significantly lower gas fees. ResearchCoin on Base is backed 1:1 by the main token on Ethereum. ResearchCoin can be moved between the two chains using apps like the [Superbridge](https://superbridge.app/). #### **Why include a token?** ResearchCoin empowers the people who dedicate their time & energy to building ResearchHub with additional influence over the type of content created within our community. People can use the RSC they earn to: * Incentivize content creation with RSC bounties * Tip the content they find valuable by supporting with RSC * Vote on key decisions for the community #### **Can RSC be converted to USD or other currency?** **Yes.** Convert to USDC or fiat currency through central exchanges, like Coinbase and Gate.io, or on decentralized exchanges, like Aerodrome or Uniswap. # Earning RSC How to earn RSC on ResearchHub RSC is a utility token, meaning that it serves a specific function within the platform, giving holders the opportunity to participate in governance, access specific features, or use the tokens to support the work of other scientists and users on the platform. On ResearchHub, people earn RSC by: * **Submitting proposals** to receive funding * **Commenting** on and discussing scientific research * **Peer-reviewing** scientific papers * **Receiving** RSC tips from other users * **Developing** open-source features # RSC Tokenomics The following section describes ResearchCoin token design and major token metrics, such as the distribution chart and emission schedule. ResearchCoin tokenomics has been designed based on token engineering principles centered around the concept of the [Web3 Sustainability Loop](https://blog.oceanprotocol.com/the-web3-sustainability-loop-b2a4097a36e). This implies that the primary focus has always been on growing the ecosystem while ensuring its long-term self-sustainability. In this context, RSC tokens are distributed gradually to contributors who add value to the project. This approach not only aligns incentives for those committed to the long-term vision of ResearchHub but also provides the team with a longer runway to iterate and discover the most effective mechanisms for catalyzing growth and converting it into value for science. Examples of such iterations include the Editor program, the Incentivized Peer Review program, and Microgrants. In each of these cases, RSC tokens are disbursed to contributors capable of creating value for the broader scientific community. This value is then captured by the platform through increased user adoption, subsequently generating more value for the platform through heightened awareness and the utilization of services and products offered by ResearchHub. This set of utilities not only enhances the overall value proposition of RSC but also fosters a dynamic and engaged community. By doing so, the ResearchHub Foundation ensures that RSC becomes a key driver for active participation and collaboration within the scientific community and aims to establish a set of positive incentives capable of creating value for all network participants, thus helping accelerate the pace of scientific research.

ResearchCoin Tokenomics

RSC Distribution Chart/pages/QWhdD4ELQ7M1UYkCYx6j
RSC Emission Schedule/pages/zyKTYdfvVb29xPatAFJe
# RSC Distribution Chart Details about the distribution of ResearchCoin The total supply of ResearchCoin is 1,000,000,000 tokens, which can always be verified at our Token Tracker page on [Etherscan](https://etherscan.io/token/0xd101dcc414f310268c37eeb4cd376ccfa507f571).\ The tokens may be distributed over a timespan of 12 years according to the following allocation pie chart:

ResearchCoin Distribution Chart

* 60% distributed to the community and users of ResearchHub, with a maximum emission of 5% per year * 20% retained by ResearchHub Technologies, Inc. * 10% retained by ResearchHub’s founders * 10% reserved for future ResearchHub employees and subject to vesting on an individual basis $RSC tokens may be distributed to ResearchHub users and to the ResearchHub Foundation. The emissions going toward ResearchHub users may be regulated by the platform reward algorithm, that is subject to be dynamically adjusted over time via Research Improvement Proposals (RIPs) being passed by the ResearchHub Foundation and voted by token holders. The ResearchHub Foundation may receive 1% per year (10M RSC) of the up to 5% (50M RSC) yearly community emission. This allocation may be used to compensate the ResearchHub Foundation representatives and contributors. # RSC Emission Schedule Details about the emission schedule of ResearchCoin ResearchCoin ($RSC) emission schedule has been designed in such a way to align the incentives of users and contributors with the long term vision of the platform. The total supply of $RSC may be released in circulation over a timespan of 12 years from the Token Generation Event (TGE), which occurred on August 1st, 2020. The Community has been allocated 60% of the total supply, which may be distributed at a maximum emission rate of 5% per year. Please note that this is an upper emission limit. | Allocation Buckets | % of Total Supply | Amount of RSC | Vesting Schedule | | ------------------ | ----------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Community | 60% | 600,000,000 | 5% of total supply distributed annually to the community (4% through the ResearchHub platform and 1% to the Foundation) | | ResearchHub Inc | 20% | 200,000,000 | Not liquid. Any future liquidity will be communicated transparently. | | New Employees | 10% | 100,000,000 | Variable - 48 months (linear) | | Founders | 10% | 100,000,000 | Variable - 48 months (cliff) or 96 months (linear) | # Contracts and Addresses ResearchHub Wallet addresses and Contract addresses | Contract Name | Address | Description | | -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | | ResearchHub Treasury 1 | [0x5222ff25f4dfc02d173c2cbd2055ee1d35f291f1](https://etherscan.io/address/0x5222ff25f4dfc02d173c2cbd2055ee1d35f291f1) | Foundation | | ResearchHub Treasury 2 | [0xe3648e99b6e68a09e28428790d12b357f081dbe0](https://etherscan.io/address/0xe3648e99b6e68a09e28428790d12b357f081dbe0) | Team | | ResearchHub Treasury 3 | [0xc4cfa2bdae08416312faa0b72758e1f3750f81e3](https://etherscan.io/address/0xc4cfa2bdae08416312faa0b72758e1f3750f81e3) | Foundation Community (Ethereum) | | N/A | [0xb280f00e70f28e8ce38c40826270de7e1b327e21](https://basescan.org/address/0xb280f00e70f28e8ce38c40826270de7e1b327e21) | Foundation Community (Base) | | ResearchHub Hot Wallet | [0x7F57d306a9422ee8175aDc25898B1b2EBF1010cb](https://etherscan.io/token/0xd101dcc414f310268c37eeb4cd376ccfa507f571?a=0x7f57d306a9422ee8175adc25898b1b2ebf1010cb) | Wallet used for user withdrawals on ResearchHub | | ResearchCoin Contract (Ethereum) | [0xD101dCC414F310268c37eEb4cD376CcFA507F571](https://etherscan.io/address/0xd101dcc414f310268c37eeb4cd376ccfa507f571) | ResearchCoin Contract | | ResearchCoin Contract (Base) | [0xFbB75A59193A3525a8825BeBe7D4b56899E2f7e1](https://basescan.org/token/0xfbb75a59193a3525a8825bebe7d4b56899e2f7e1) | ResearchCoin Contract | # What is the ResearchHub Foundation? In Web3 the community is the heart of any successful project. At ResearchHub, this is no different! The main function of the [ResearchHub Foundation](https://www.researchhub.foundation) and community is to help support the development and success of the [ResearchHub ](https://www.researchhub.com/)platform. This can include marketing, events, educational content, interacting with partners and onboarding scientists. The ResearchHub Community operates under the ResearchHub Foundation name and functions like a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). This means that the community operates in a decentralized manner, with the token holders of ResearchCoin voting on proposals for various topics. {% embed url="" %} ResearchHub Foundation official website {% endembed %} # Programs and Initiatives The ResearchHub Foundation is always looking to build new partnerships, collaborations, and onboard new members to contribute. {% hint style="info" %} If you'd like to learn and apply to be an Editor or Peer Reviewer, please navigate to the Onboarding Forms below: {% endhint %}
Cover image
Peer Reviewer Program/files/cYK1vIijLdFAuDNYWx3g/pages/1l0K6IYIkp5bqkViClYM
Editorial Program/files/cYK1vIijLdFAuDNYWx3g/pages/TRXdy9WU1ZG3ctL28cTi
The ResearchHub Journal/files/3zbnuJszqzp7qRlne20T/pages/65J7PURmwhbwrjdj1sRD
# Peer Review Program This section is intended to help guide interested scientists in applying as a Peer Reviewer. We are curating a large database of Peer Reviewers who are paid for their time and expertise.
Cover image
Peer Review Guidelines/files/3zbnuJszqzp7qRlne20T/pages/p8TXLJLgrc2jKtvJX1pD
Peer Reviewer Application/files/3zbnuJszqzp7qRlne20Thttps://airtable.com/apptLQP8XMy1kaiID/pag5tkxt0V18Xobje/form
# Peer Review Guidelines ### Overview Peer review is essential to high‑quality science, yet it is often unpaid, opaque, and slow. The ResearchHub Peer Review Program is designed to change that. Our program compensates researchers for thoughtful, rigorous peer reviews, increases transparency in scientific evaluation, and accelerates feedback for authors. Reviews are publicly visible, editorially evaluated for quality, and rewarded when they meaningfully contribute to scientific discourse. This guide explains how to get started, how to write a high‑quality peer review, and how compensation works. *** ### Who Can Participate The Peer Review Program is open to researchers, scientists, and domain experts across disciplines. To participate fully and be eligible for compensation, reviewers must: * Create a ResearchHub account * Complete their profile with relevant expertise * Verify their identity (required for paid reviews) Identity verification helps maintain trust, accountability, and review quality across the platform. *** ### Getting Started #### 1. Create an Account Register at researchhub.com and complete your user profile, including: * Research interests and subject areas * Institutional affiliation (if applicable) #### 2. Verify Your Identity and Authenticate ORCID To submit paid peer reviews eligible for compensation, reviewers must: * Verify identity * Authenticate ORCID Both steps are required to: * Submit for paid peer reviews * Receive ResearchCoin (RSC) compensation * Build credibility and trust as a reviewer After authenticating ORCID, you can sync your publications directly from ORCID to your ResearchHub profile, helping editors better assess subject-matter expertise. Once verified and authenticated, your profile will display a verified badge. *** ### Finding Preprints and Proposals to Review On ResearchHub, you can submit peer reviews for both funding proposals and research preprints. These are reviewed in similar ways, but each has distinct review prompts and evaluation criteria. #### What You Can Review * Funding Proposals: Reviews focus on feasibility, methodological rigor, potential impact, and alignment with the RFP's stated goals. * Preprints: Reviews emphasize scientific rigor, clarity, validity of methods and results, and contribution to the field. Each review type will display tailored prompts in the bounty details to guide your feedback. #### How to Find Reviews with Bounties * Use the Earn tab to identify preprints or proposals actively seeking reviews * Filter by subject area to match your expertise * Prioritize recent or under-reviewed items where your feedback will be most impactful You do not need prior permission to submit a review. Reviewing work that closely aligns with your demonstrated expertise significantly increases your chances of editorial approval and receiving compensation. *** ### Writing a Peer Review You can start a review immediately by navigating to a proposal or preprint's page and selecting the Reviews tab. All reviews are evaluated by ResearchHub editors for quality before being approved for compensation. #### Review Limits To maintain quality and prevent reviewer burnout: * Reviewers may submit up to 2 reviews per week #### Length Limit * Peer reviews may be up to 3,000 words (this is a maximum, not a target length) * Reviews should prioritize clarity and substance over length #### Review Components The required review components depend on whether you are reviewing a preprint or a funding proposal. Each review type has tailored prompts on the platform. **For Preprints** When reviewing a preprint, you will be asked to write and evaluate the following sections: * **Overall Impact:** Does the work meaningfully advance the field or open new directions for research? * **Introduction:** Does the introduction clearly state the research question, background, and motivation for the work? * **Methods:** Are the methods appropriate, rigorous, and clearly described? * **Results:** Are results presented clearly and supported by data? * **Discussion:** Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results, and are limitations appropriately addressed? **For Funding Proposals** When reviewing a funding proposal, you will be asked to evaluate: * **Overall Impact:** What is the potential impact of the proposed work if successful? * **Importance (Significance & Innovation):** Does the proposal address an important problem and introduce novel concepts, approaches, or applications? * **Rigor & Feasibility (Approach, Team, Budget):** Is the proposed approach sound and feasible given the team’s expertise, timeline, and budget? * **Additional Review Requirements:** Are considerations such as human subjects protections, data and code sharing plans, ethical approvals, or regulatory requirements adequately addressed? Ratings and written feedback are required for each applicable section. #### AI Use Policy AI tools may be used for spelling, grammar, or clarity assistance, but: * AI must not generate scientific content or analysis * Reviewers remain fully responsible for accuracy and originality * Undisclosed AI-generated reviews are not permitted Any use of AI tools, whether for copy-editing, clarity, or other assistance, must be disclosed within the review.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

*** ### What Makes a Review Outstanding High‑quality reviews typically demonstrate: #### Specificity * Instead of: “The methods are unclear.” * Try: “The sampling strategy in Section 2 would benefit from clarification on inclusion criteria.” #### Constructive Critique * Identify limitations while suggesting improvements * Separate methodological issues from stylistic feedback #### Transparency * Acknowledge uncertainty where appropriate * Distinguish opinion from evidence #### Rigor * Reference relevant literature when applicable * Assess reproducibility and robustness Vague criticism or unsupported claims will not be approved. *** ### Editorial Evaluation Each submitted review is evaluated by ResearchHub editors based on: * Depth and clarity of feedback * Scientific rigor * Constructiveness and professionalism Editors may provide feedback or request revisions before approval.

Unified Recommendations to Peer Reviewers

*** ### Compensation #### Payment Amount * $150 USD equivalent in ResearchCoin (RSC) per approved high‑quality review * A maximum of two paid reviews per paper This ensures timely reviews while maintaining quality standards. #### Payment Timeline * Reviews are typically evaluated within several days after submission deadline closes * Approved payments are issued approximately 10 days after acceptance #### Using and Converting RSC RSC can be: * Held as ResearchCoin * Used on the ResearchHub platform to fund, tip, or post bounties * Converted to other cryptocurrencies or cash through supported exchanges *** ### Information Sessions and Support New reviewers are encouraged to attend our weekly information sessions and explore examples of exemplary, high-quality reviews. #### Information Sessions * Tuesdays and Fridays: 11:00 AM PST * Wednesdays: 4:00 PM PST * Meeting link:[ https://meet.google.com/jww-ndus-kcr](https://meet.google.com/jww-ndus-kcr) #### **Exemplary Peer Reviews** **Preprints** * Review by Peng Li: [https://www.researchhub.com/paper/9341802/pre-amyloid-cognitive-intervention-preserves\[…\]y-and-enhancing-plasticity-in-a-sex-specific-manner/reviews](https://www.researchhub.com/paper/9341802/pre-amyloid-cognitive-intervention-preserves-brain-function-in-aged-tgf344-ad-rats-maintaining-connectivity-and-enhancing-plasticity-in-a-sex-specific-manner/reviews) * Reviews by Hao Yin and Simon Vidal: [https://www.researchhub.com/paper/9553883/epigenetic-reactivation-of-cns-endothelial-d\[…\]-stroke-revascularization-and-neuronal-regeneration/reviews](https://www.researchhub.com/paper/9553883/epigenetic-reactivation-of-cns-endothelial-developmental-programs-triggers-adult-brain-angiogenesis-promotes-post-stroke-revascularization-and-neuronal-regeneration/reviews) **Proposals** * Review by Tibor Varga: * Review by Faye McKenna: [https://www.researchhub.com/fund/4094/title-investigating-the-neural-and-cerebrovascul\[…\]s-for-glymphatic-function-and-brain-waste-clearance/reviews](https://www.researchhub.com/fund/4094/title-investigating-the-neural-and-cerebrovascular-effects-of-the-wim-hof-breathing-technique-implications-for-glymphatic-function-and-brain-waste-clearance/reviews) ### Certificate of Peer Review If you’re interested in receiving a certificate from ResearchHub, please email . ### Contact If you have questions or need support, please email . \ We appreciate your contributions to improving scientific peer review and advancing open science. # Funding Evaluation Guidelines The following peer review guide will ensure consistent, fair, and scientifically grounded evaluation of preregistrations. Scoring will be based on the following scale:

1 = Poor, 2 = Marginal, 3 = Adequate, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent

### Overall Impact * Please give an overall impact score based on the project’s novelty, rigor, reproducibility, and impact in its field. Consider the two core review factors below. ### Core Review Factors #### Importance of the Research (Significance and Innovation) * Assess the project’s hypothesis and/or goal in addition to the current challenges in the field and the novelty of the proposed concepts. Authors should also highlight the advantages, caveats, and limitations in addition to alternative approaches. * Reviewers should consider: * Does the project address a critical problem, gap, or opportunity in the field? * Are the goals novel, transformative, or likely to advance the discipline? * Will successful completion make a meaningful contribution? #### Rigor and Feasibility (Approach, Team and Environment, Budget) * Evaluate the robustness of the “research design and methods”, “timeline”, “investigators and environment”, and “budget”. * Reviewers should consider: * Are the objectives and methodology clearly articulated and logically aligned? * Are the study design, data collection, and analysis plans sound and reproducible? * Are the pitfalls and alternative approaches discussed? * Is the timeline reasonable and appropriately paced for the proposed scope? * Does the team have the necessary expertise and environment to perform the work? * Is the budget well-justified and aligned with project goals and timeline? ### Additional Review Criteria *If applicable, proposals with funding potential will be evaluated on these.* These criteria are not scored separately but must be addressed for the application to be eligible for funding. * Human Subject Protections: Assess the adequacy of protections for human participants, including risk minimization, informed consent, and data privacy measures. * Animal Protections: Review the justification for animal use, adequacy of veterinary care, procedures to minimize discomfort, and compliance with relevant policies. * Biohazards: Determine if the proposed containment and safety procedures for hazardous materials are sufficient and compliant with regulations. * Resubmission/Renewal/Revisions: For resubmitted or revised applications, assess the adequacy of responses to previous critiques and the improvements made. * Commitment to Open Science: Assess if the data or protocols are available on public platforms and if the authors set a reasonable timeline for disseminating outcomes. # Manuscript Evaluation Guidelines The recommendations below list expectations from editors to peer reviewers regarding individual sections of the peer review for manuscripts/preprints. Please follow these guidelines to provide concise and actionable feedback, avoiding unnecessary summaries and lengthy reviews. ### General Guidelines * Please be constructive, respectful, and professional * Please refrain from summarizing manuscripts. * Please avoid vague or generic statements. * Please identify specific issues and areas for improvement * Please provide actionable feedback to improve scientific rigor, clarity, and impact. * AI tools may be used for copy-editing purposes only, provided that disclosure is made. #### Conflict of Interest * Do you have any conflicts of interest that could bias your ability to provide an independent review? {% hint style="info" %} Please justify your responses to each question below. {% endhint %} ### Overall Assessment |


| **Questions for Initial Review** | | --------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | **Originality and Novelty** |
  • Does the manuscript present a novel contribution to the field?
  • Is the research question clearly stated and relevant?
  • Does the manuscript fill a gap in existing knowledge or provide new insights?
| | **Scope and Impact** |
  • Is the study within the journal’s scope?
  • Does the manuscript have a significant scientific or practical impact?
| | **Clarity and Focus** |
  • Is the writing clear, concise, and well-organized?
  • Are the study’s objectives and conclusions well-aligned?
| | **Title and Abstract** |
  • Is the title clear and accurate? And does it represent the study?
  • Does the abstract accurately summarize the key findings and significance of the study?
| ### Introduction |


| **Questions for Initial Review** | | ---------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Introduction** |
  • Is the introduction well-structured, providing sufficient background and context for the study?
  • Are the research objectives or hypotheses clearly stated?
  • Does the introduction provide relevant, up-to-date, and correct references?
| ### Methods |


| **Questions for Initial Review** | | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Rigor** |
  • Are the methods appropriate and sufficiently detailed to allow reproducibility?
  • Are the study design, sample size, and data collection procedures justified and adequate?
  • Are the statistical methods, sample size, and controls appropriate?
| | **Methods** |
  • Does the study adhere to ethical guidelines (e.g., animal or human research) if applicable?
| ### Results |


| **Questions for Initial Review** | | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | **Interpretation** |
  • Are the findings interpreted correctly and supported by the data?
  • Are the results overinterpreted or overstated?
  • Are there any inconsistencies or ambiguities in the results?
| | **Presentation** |
  • Are the results presented clearly and well-organized?
  • Are figures, tables, and supplementary materials accurately labeled and relevant?
  • Are statistical results reported accurately and interpreted correctly?
| ### Discussion |


| **Questions for Initial Review** | | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Context** |
  • Does the discussion place the findings in the context of existing literature?
| | **Conclusions** |
  • Do the results support the conclusions?
| | **Limitations** |
  • Does the discussion include the study’s limitations?
| ### Final Recommendation (If Applicable) What is your final recommendation for publication: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject?
# Editorial Program **About the Editorial Program** At the heart of ResearchHub’s mission is its robust editorial program, which serves as the backbone of the platform's commitment to scientific excellence. The editorial team, led by the Editor-in-Chief and supported by the Editorial Staff, ensures the publication of high-caliber, peer-reviewed research that meets the highest standards of rigor and integrity. The program prioritizes timely manuscript processing, constructive peer review, and disseminating impactful research across disciplines. With a focus on collaboration, mentorship, and leadership, the editorial program is designed to foster a culture of excellence and innovation. Editorial staff members not only oversee the quality of content but also actively contribute to the scientific community by connecting with academic institutions, recruiting top-tier peer reviewers, and promoting groundbreaking research. By adhering to ResearchHub’s mission, the editorial program aims to set new benchmarks for transparency, quality, and accessibility in scientific publishing. **The Editorial Mission** The ResearchHub editorial team is dedicated to advancing the frontiers of scientific discovery by curating and disseminating high-quality, peer-reviewed research. Committed to excellence, teamwork, and leadership, the team exemplifies the values of integrity, collaboration, and innovation. As ambassadors of ResearchHub, the editorial staff upholds the platform's vision of fostering an open and inclusive scientific community.
Editor Program Application/files/cYK1vIijLdFAuDNYWx3ghttps://airtable.com/apptLQP8XMy1kaiID/pagngh8yaYGL7aLAC/form
Editor Role and Summary/files/cYK1vIijLdFAuDNYWx3g/pages/QMiAwwxuq4PxQ43KgBNt
# Editor Role and Summary ### **Scope of Position** These roles primarily focus on the development and operation of the ResearchHub Platform, ensuring the growth and excellence of open scientific collaboration. However, as part of their responsibilities, editors will actively contribute to the development of the ResearchHub Journal. This includes inviting authors, vetting papers, overseeing peer reviews, and ensuring the timely publication of high-quality journal content. ### **Role Summary** Editors at all levels are essential to ResearchHub’s mission of promoting high-quality, peer-reviewed research. They manage day-to-day operations related to manuscript submissions, peer review oversight, and content publication within their areas of expertise. * **Commitment:** 6-10 hours per week ### Key Responsibilities *Please note the following pertains to Assistant and Associate Editors. The role of Senior Editor requires additional duties.* #### Content Management * Upload at least 6 high-quality preprints weekly to qualify for peer review bounties. * Evaluate and assess both preprints and funding proposals (RFP submissions) for quality, relevance, and readiness for peer review. * Review the quality of submitted peer reviews and provide structured recommendations to the Editorial Lead. * Maintain communication with assigned peer reviewers and authors/applicants to ensure deadlines and editorial standards are met. #### Team Support * Suggest qualified peer reviewers to Editorial Lead for both preprints and funding proposals. * Attend weekly editorial meetings to align on objectives, pipeline status, and funding initiatives. * Support internal tracking and coordination of manuscript and proposal reviews through the internal system. #### Scientific Contributions * Actively engage with peer reviewers and facilitate manuscript and proposal reviews within the ResearchHub workflow. * Identify strong funding proposals and help ensure they receive rigorous, constructive evaluation. * Proactively outreach to scientists and research teams to encourage submission to active RFPs. * Assist in identifying and engaging potential funders, partners, and aligned organizations interested in supporting RFPs. #### Ambassadorship * Act as an ambassador for ResearchHub, promoting the platform across publishing, peer review, and funding initiatives within their scientific network. * Conduct outreach to recruit peer reviewers, attract high-quality manuscript submissions, and encourage applications to active funding calls. * Strengthen relationships within relevant academic, industry, and philanthropic communities to expand ResearchHub’s impact. ### Qualifications * Doctoral Degree. * Record of high-quality publications in reputable scientific journals. * **4+ years** of relevant experience in academic publishing, research, or peer review. * Familiarity with manuscript editing, peer review coordination, or similar roles in scientific communication. ### Interested? Please fill out our [**Editor Application**](https://airtable.com/apptLQP8XMy1kaiID/pagngh8yaYGL7aLAC/form) and contact [**Arshia Malek**](mailto:arshia@researchhub.foundation) (Vice President of Operations) with your resume/CV. # ResearchHub Journal (RHJ) ResearchHub Journal publishes your Registered Report the moment your ResearchHub proposal is funded — connecting funding, protocol, and results into one open, citable record. ### What is The ResearchHub Journal? The core mission of The ResearchHub Journal (ISSN: 3070-3395) is to accelerate the pace of science by closing the loop between funding and publication. Today, RHJ exclusively publishes **Registered Reports (RRs)** that originate from proposals funded on ResearchHub. Because every RR published in RHJ comes from a ResearchHub-funded proposal, each article is part of a connected chain that anyone can trace from start to finish. Every report page links back to its Proposal and Funding Opportunity, so readers can follow a study's full path — from the original funding opportunity, to the funded proposal, to the locked-in protocol, to the eventual results: 1. **Funding Opportunity** — A Funding Opportunity is opened, inviting researchers to submit projects addressing a specific scientific question. 2. **Proposal** — Researchers submit a project proposal in response to the Funding Opportunity. Proposals are peer reviewed by our scientific community and assessed by the funder to select the winner. Proposals can also be funded by the members of our community who find it impactful and important to our society even if it wasn't selected by the funder of a specific funding opportunity. 3. **Registered Report** — Once a proposal is funded, its hypotheses and methods are locked in and published in the ResearchHub Journal as a Registered Report — before any data is collected. 4. **Results** — After the study is completed, the authors submit their full results and analysis, which is published as Results — the final manuscript that completes the record. {% hint style="info" icon="lightbulb-exclamation" %} For example: [Funding Opportunity](https://www.researchhub.com/grant/4175/request-for-proposals-exploring-expanded-consciousness-and-endogenous-dmt) → [Proposal](https://www.researchhub.com/proposal/4261/effects-of-psilocybin-and-related-compounds-on-neuroprotection-in-human-stroke) → [Registered Report](https://www.researchhub.com/report/32656/effects-of-psilocybin-and-related-compounds-on-cerebroprotection-during-ischemic-stroke-stage-1-registered-report) {% endhint %} ### Benefits of Publishing with ResearchHub **1. Free to Publish** Because your Registered Report comes from a proposal that has already been funded through ResearchHub, publishing a Registered Report in the ResearchHub Journal is **free**. There is no article processing charge (APC). **2. Transparency & Reproducibility** The ResearchHub Journal is built on the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model. Locking in hypotheses and methods before research begins as a Registered Report, and publishing full results afterward as Results, regardless of the outcome, protects against selective reporting, increasing the scientific value of your research. Every step — funding opportunity, proposal, Registered Report, and Results — is openly linked and citable. All articles are published under open licenses. **3. Boosted Visibility** ResearchHub is committed to maximizing the visibility of your research. Our strong social media presence allows us to promote your work and ensure it reaches a broad audience of scientists, researchers, and the global community. Increased visibility leads to greater engagement, more citations, and a broader impact. ### Resources * [Author Guidelines](https://docs.researchhub.com/~/revisions/ktYW3DwwRQvpilVlGG1J/researchhub-foundation/programs-and-initiatives/researchhub-journal-rhj/author-guidelines) * [Submission Template](https://docs.researchhub.com/~/revisions/ktYW3DwwRQvpilVlGG1J/researchhub-foundation/programs-and-initiatives/researchhub-journal-rhj/submission-template) * [Editorial Policies](https://docs.researchhub.com/~/revisions/ktYW3DwwRQvpilVlGG1J/researchhub-foundation/programs-and-initiatives/researchhub-journal-rhj/editorial-policies) * [Editorial and Peer Review Process](https://docs.researchhub.com/~/revisions/ktYW3DwwRQvpilVlGG1J/researchhub-foundation/programs-and-initiatives/researchhub-journal-rhj/editorial-and-peer-review-process) {% hint style="info" %} Please visit the ResearchHub Journal’s [landing page](https://www.researchhub.com/journal?ref=blog.researchhub.foundation\&tab=about) to learn more. {% endhint %} # Author Guidelines ResearchHub Journal (RHJ) Please use these guidelines to prepare your manuscript for submission to ResearchHub. Remove any italicized instructions before submission. ### Formatting Guidelines #### Language and Text All articles must be written in good English. Symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms should be defined at first use. #### Manuscript Length There are no strict word limits, but we encourage concise and clear writing. #### Font and Spacing Use Times New Roman (12 pt) and double-space the text. #### Margins Set margins to 1 inch (2.5 cm) on all sides. #### Page Numbers Include page numbers in the footer of each page. #### Line Numbers Include line numbers in the left margin of each page. #### Figures and Tables Include figures and tables embedded within the text where they are first cited. Figures and tables should be submitted in the size they are likely to appear in the journal. Figures should be provided in high resolution format such as EPS files (vector files) or if unavailable, an uncompressed TIFF file (300–600 dpi). Please additionally specify whether the color mode used was RGB or grayscale. #### Figure Legends Provide detailed captions beneath each figure. **Example:** > Figure 1. Title of the figure. Description of what the figure shows. Make sure to include a detailed description for each panel including the number of replicates and statistical analysis. #### Table Titles Provide titles and, if necessary, explanatory notes above each table. **Example:** > Table 1. Title of the table. Description or notes. #### Supplementary Material List any supplementary files or additional material submitted with the manuscript. All supplementary files must be cited in the main manuscript in numerical order. **Example:** > "Supplementary Figure S1: Detailed methodology flowchart." #### Keywords Please attach any relevant hubs (i.e. keywords) to your submission in the ResearchHub web app. #### Submission (.docx & .pdf) Please submit both a native `.docx` (clear all tracked changes & comments) and `.pdf` file. # Submission Template ResearchHub Journal (RHJ) Please use this template to prepare your manuscript for submission to ResearchHub. Remove any italicized instructions before submission. ### Title of the Manuscript Provide a concise and informative title that reflects the content of your manuscript. *** ### Authors and Affiliations List all authors (Name Middle initial. Last name) and their affiliations. ``` First Author¹, Second Author², Third Author³* ¹Department, Institution, City, Country ²Department, Institution, City, Country ³Department, Institution, City, Country *Corresponding author: email@example.com ``` *** ### Abstract Provide a structured abstract of up to 250 words summarizing the Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions of the study. Refer to the following resource for best practices: *** ### Introduction Provide a background and clearly state the research question, hypothesis or objectives, and significance of the study with reference to previous work. *** ### Materials and Methods Provide detailed information to allow replication of the study. #### Study Design Describe the type of study and its design. #### Participants or Subjects **Human Subjects** — Specify: * Selection and exclusion criteria * Sample size calculation and justification * Demographic characteristics * Recruitment methods * Ethical approvals and institutional review board numbers * Informed consent procedures * Group allocation methods **Animal Models** — Detail: * Species, strain, and genetic background * Age, sex, and weight ranges * Source/vendor and stock numbers * Housing and husbandry conditions * Breeding schemes and genetic crosses * Genotyping procedures * Animal health status and monitoring * Euthanasia methods * Number of animals per experimental group **Cell Lines** — Specify: * Cell line name and source/repository * Authentication methods * Mycoplasma testing status * Passage numbers used * Culture conditions (media, supplements, environment) * Cell harvesting and maintenance protocols * Quality control measures **Other Model Systems** — Include relevant details for: * Bacterial/yeast strains * Plant varieties * Organoid systems * Tissue explants * Computational models For clinical trials, include the registration number and registry name. #### Materials All materials used in the study must be described with sufficient detail to enable reproducibility. Include: * **Chemical compounds:** Full chemical names, purity grades, CAS numbers (where applicable), and manufacturer details * **Biological materials:** Species, strain designations, source/supplier, authentication methods, and relevant identifiers * **Engineering materials/equipment:** Model numbers, specifications, manufacturer information, and critical operating parameters * **Software/computational tools:** Version numbers, settings, and relevant parameters For novel materials or methods, provide detailed preparation protocols. For well-established materials and methods, cite appropriate references. Include any safety considerations or special handling requirements when relevant. All materials must comply with relevant safety and ethical guidelines. #### Data Collection Explain the methods and tools used for data collection by specifying: * Measurement techniques and instruments * Calibration procedures * Sampling intervals and conditions * Quality control measures * Data recording methods and formats * Validation procedures * Observer training (if applicable) #### Interventions or Procedures Describe any interventions or experimental procedures by specifying: * Step-by-step experimental protocols * Control and treatment conditions * Duration and frequency of interventions * Equipment settings and parameters * Environmental conditions * Quality assurance measures * Modifications to standard protocols (if any) #### Data Analysis Describe the statistical methods used and the allowances made (if any) for controlling bias or unwanted sources of variability. Include: * Statistical tests employed with justification * Software packages and versions used * Data preprocessing steps * Handling of missing data * Methods for controlling bias * Power analysis (if applicable) * Effect size calculations * Confidence intervals * Statistical significance criteria * Methods for handling outliers * Validation procedures for analytical methods *** ### Results and Discussion Present the findings logically, using text, tables, and figures as appropriate. #### Main Findings Detail the primary outcomes of the study. #### Discussion Interpret the results in the context of existing literature. #### Key Insights Highlight the significance and implications of the findings. #### Limitations Discuss any limitations of the study. *** ### Conclusions Summarize the main findings and their potential impact. *** ### Acknowledgments Recognize individuals or organizations that assisted in the study but are not listed as authors. **Example:** > "The authors thank Jane Doe for her assistance with data collection." *** ### Funding Disclose all sources of funding for the research. **Example:** > "This work was supported by the National Science Foundation \[Grant No. XXXX]." If not applicable, add: "This work received no specific grant funding." *** ### Author Contributions Specify the contributions of each author using their initials. **Example:** * A.B. conceived and designed the experiments. * C.D. performed the experiments. * E.F. analyzed the data. * A.B. and E.F. wrote the manuscript. * All authors read and approved the final manuscript. *** ### Data and Code Availability State where the data supporting the findings can be found. We highly recommend leveraging existing repositories such as [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org/) for open access to data and [GitHub](https://github.com/) for open source software access alongside your publication. * **Data:** CC0 or CC-BY * **Code:** MIT, Apache, or similar open source license **Examples:** > "The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request." > "All data are included in the manuscript and supplementary materials." > "Data is available in a public repository \[provide DOI or URL]." *** ### Conflicts of Interest This section is mandatory. All authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could influence the work. **Example (no conflicts):** > "The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest." **Example (with conflicts):** > "Author A.B. has received research grants from Company X. Author C.D. is a consultant for Company Y." *** ### Ethical Approval Include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the approval number. **Human Subject Research:** > "This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of \[Institution Name] (approval number: XXX-YYYY). All participants provided written informed consent before enrollment." **Animal Research:** > "All animal procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of \[Institution Name] (protocol number: IACUC-XXXX) and conducted in compliance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals." *** ### Consent to Participate State that informed consent was obtained from all participants. **Example:** > "Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study." If not applicable, add: "Ethics and consent were not required for the performed study." *** ### References List all references cited in the text in a consistent citation style (Vancouver). Ensure all references are complete and accurate. **Example format:** > 1. Author(s). Title of the article. Journal Name. Year; Volume(Issue). DOI # Editorial Policies ResearchHub Journal (RHJ) ResearchHub Journal is an issueless publication with a continuous publishing schedule. It adheres to industry standards for all of its editorial policies, by following the Core Practices and other relevant recommendations and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). *** ### Originality ResearchHub Journal requires the submission of original work. Previously published or work submitted to another journal is not permitted. Work previously posted as a preprint can be submitted for publication in the ResearchHub journal. Self-plagiarism is strictly prohibited. If detected during the editorial or review process, the manuscript may be rejected and if detected post-publication an investigation will be conducted. Excessive self-citation and citations showing favouritism to colleagues and institutions is strongly discouraged. Copyright infringement is also grounds for rejection. Authors must obtain necessary permissions for reproducing copyrighted material and cite original sources. Creative Commons licensed figures can be reused under specific license terms. *** ### AI Use ResearchHub Journal requires transparency in the use of AI technologies. We expect authors to declare AI use, by clearly stating the type, purpose, and process of AI usage in the manuscript. This includes a detailed description of AI inputs, outputs, and human review. Authors are responsible for the accuracy and originality of AI-assisted content. ResearchHub journal adheres to the COPE position statement on Authorship and AI tools, and does not allow AI to be listed as an author on an article. ResearchHub will review this policy regularly to adapt to evolving AI technologies. *** ### Authorship Authors are responsible for the integrity of their work, including data, analysis, ethics, and materials. All authors named on a paper must agree to the manuscript's content and approve submission. The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the editorial office and ensuring compliance with the ICMJE authorship criteria. We expect the corresponding author to promptly report any errors and inaccuracies identified after publication. Non-author contributors should be named in the acknowledgement section. All authors should be affiliated with an accredited institution where the majority of the work was performed. Authors should use their preferred name and gender identity, informing the editorial office of any significant changes. **Author Changes:** If authorship changes post-publication, a new version with an explanation will be published. All authors must confirm any authorship changes. **Author Disputes:** In agreement with the COPE guidelines, the editorial office cannot take responsibility for resolving any disputes over authorship; any disagreements amongst the authors must be settled by the authors' institution(s). **Consortium/Group Authorship:** If authorship is retained by a consortium or group, the consortium or group should be listed as the author. *** ### Conflicts of Interest #### Authors Authors must declare conflicts of interest, including financial and non-financial ones. No conflicting interest precludes publication, but full transparency is required. ResearchHub Journal follows the ICMJE guidelines: **Disclosure Required:** Financial (e.g., grants, stock ownership) and non-financial (e.g., personal relationships) conflicts. Sponsor involvement in research (design, data, publication). **Disclosure Methods:** During submission to ResearchHub Journal or in the "Conflicts of Interest" section in the manuscript. **Consequences of Non-Disclosure:** ResearchHub Journal will apply a correction or a retraction/expression of concern (if applicable). #### Reviewers Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., institutional affiliation, past collaborations, personal relationships, financial interests, or ideological differences) upon invitation. Such conflicts may disqualify reviewers. *** ### Publication & Research Ethics ResearchHub Journal upholds research ethics as recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). ResearchHub Journal does not tolerate ethical malpractice and authors, editors, and readers should report any ethical concerns to the Editorial Office for investigation. #### Research Involving Humans Authors must adhere to the Helsinki Declaration (2024) and obtain IRB approval for research involving human subjects. Informed written consent is required, especially for vulnerable populations. For non-interventional studies (e.g. surveys), authors should inform participants and obtain ethics approval if required. Patient data should be anonymised unless necessary for the study. Written, informed consent for identifiable information should be obtained from all patients or healthy participants (or their legal guardians for minors, or next of kin if the participant is deceased), confirming that the results and any accompanying images can be published. In addition, authors must also comply with their institutional and country-specific regulations and guidelines for handling research involving humans. #### Research Involving Animals We encourage authors to follow ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines for in vivo animal experiments. Experiments involving vertebrates or regulated invertebrates must be carried out within the ethical guidelines provided by the authors' institution and national or international regulations. Where applicable, a statement of ethics permission granted or animal licenses should be included. If animals were used but ethical approval was not required, a clear statement should be included stating why this approval was unnecessary. #### Research Involving Cell Lines If cell lines are used in research, their origin should be specified in the Materials and Methods section. If an established cell line is used, its origin from a commercial source should be stated. If previously unpublished lines are used, including those obtained from a non-commercial source (laboratory), details of the IRB or ethics committee should be provided. #### Research Involving Plants Any experimental research on plants (cultivated or wild), including the collection of plant material, must follow institutional, national or international guidelines. *** ### Image Integrity All image files must be original and unmodified. Any modifications of the original image must be disclosed in the Materials and Methods section. Original, unprocessed images of gel and micrograph images may be required. If image manipulation is detected, ResearchHub Journal follows the guidance of COPE and this may lead to the manuscript being rejected or post-publication corrections/retractions being applied. *** ### Availability of Data, Materials, Code and Protocols ResearchHub Journal is dedicated to transparency and reproducibility in research and endorses the FAIR Data Principles. Authors are strongly encouraged to ensure that all data, materials, code, and protocols associated with their research are readily available to readers. **Data Availability:** We strongly encourage authors to deposit their data in recognized generalist and subject-specific repositories to ensure long-term preservation and accessibility. The data should have an open licence (CC0, CC-BY 4.0 or equivalent) and should have a persistent identifier (DOI, Accession Number or other recognised identifiers). Authors should include a Data Availability Statement in their manuscript that provides detailed information on where and how the data supporting their findings can be accessed. This includes direct links to datasets or detailed instructions for accessing the data. It should also contain a brief description of the contents of each dataset. If data cannot be made publicly available due to ethical or legal restrictions, authors must clearly state these limitations and provide justifications in the Data Availability Statement. **Code Availability:** For all software used, we strongly encourage authors to state the version, details of where the software can be accessed, and any variable parameters that could impact the outcome of the results. This information should be added to the Data Availability Statement. If custom code or software was used in the research, authors must include information about where and how this code can be accessed. This could be through public repositories like GitHub or in the supplementary materials. Restrictions on code accessibility should be clearly stated with justifications. **Materials and Protocols:** To enable reproducibility, ResearchHub Journal requires detailed information about the materials used and the protocols followed. Where applicable, we encourage authors to deposit a step-by-step description of their protocols. If any materials or protocols are proprietary or confidential, authors should mention alternative ways for readers to replicate the experiment or analysis. *** ### Licensing ResearchHub journal articles are published under a CC BY license, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and leaves the copyright of the article with the current copyright holder (usually the author or his/her institution). Data associated with ResearchHub articles are made available, where possible, under the terms of a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (CC0 license). Peer review reports that are published with a given article are also available under the CC BY license. *** ### Copyright Articles submitted to ResearchHub journal that contain content that infringes copyright may be rejected if the problematic sections cannot be removed. Authors who wish to reproduce a figure or table from a previous copyrighted publication are responsible for obtaining the permission of copyright holders and for clearly referencing the original source. Figures that were previously published under a Creative Commons license may be reused under the condition of the specific license that applies to those figures. *** ### Permanency of Content All peer-reviewed articles published in ResearchHub Journal receive a DOI and are permanently published. All published content is permanently archived and will be indexed in major bibliography databases. ResearchHub Journal allows the deposition of the submitted version, accepted version and their published version in an institutional or other repository of the author's choice without embargo. *** ### Post-Publication Policy ResearchHub Journal is dedicated to the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record and follows the COPE Guidelines for published content that requires a correction or, in some cases, retraction of the article. Such errors can be reported by an author, reader, or independent party and will be handled by the ResearchHub Journal's editorial office. **Corrections:** An article may be corrected if significant errors are found after publication. Significant errors will be corrected with the publication of a Correction notice and a note added to the updated article page to communicate the change. Minor errors that do not influence the scientific understanding or readability of the publication will not be updated. **Retractions:** An article may be retracted when an entire work is brought into question with major issues, for example, due to serious errors within the research process, ethical violations, plagiarism, data fabrication, or other significant reasons. If a Retraction is published, the retracted article will be marked as retracted in all its forms. **Expression of Concern:** If there are serious concerns about an article but no conclusive evidence can be obtained that would unequivocally justify a Retraction, the editorial office may decide to publish an Expression of Concern or Commentary. *** ### Allegations of Research Misconduct ResearchHub Journal is dedicated to upholding the highest standards in scholarly publishing. If a case of suspected research or publication misconduct is brought to our attention, we will follow the guidance and workflows recommended by COPE. Research misconduct includes data fabrication or falsification, or cases where research involving animals or humans has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. Publication misconduct includes duplicate publication of articles or clear plagiarism. Honest errors or differences of opinion are not considered 'misconduct'. The Editorial Office will initiate an investigation, communicating with the assigned Associate Editor(s) and the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article. Corresponding author(s) will be invited to provide an explanation and supporting evidence. If no response is received from the authors or the explanation is unsatisfactory, we may consider automatic rejection or retraction. *** ### Complaints and Appeals ResearchHub Journal follows the COPE guidelines in relation to complaints and appeals. To make an appeal about an editorial decision or make a complaint about the journal, contact our Editorial Lead, Ruslan Rust (). All complaints from readers and authors will be taken seriously. # Editorial and Peer Review Process ResearchHub Journal (RHJ) ### Initial Checks Submissions to ResearchHub Journal first undergo a set of initial checks performed by the in-house editorial team that include a scope verification, author identity verification, plagiarism checks, competing interests checks and compliance with our ResearchHub Journals Editorial Policies. *** ### Editorial Review After completing the initial checks, each submission is assigned to an Academic Editor with relevant subject area expertise. The Academic Editor's role is to review and oversee the submission through to the completion of peer review where they will make the decision on whether the reviewed preprint can be made a version of record. *** ### Peer Review Expert reviewers are selected and invited by the Academic Editor based on expertise, publication history, and relevance, and invites them to provide feedback on the preprint version of the manuscript. #### Peer Reviewer Eligibility **Qualifications:** Peer reviewers should typically hold a doctorate (PhD/MD/MBBS or equivalent) or a demonstrable public record of expertise. **Experience:** Peer reviewers should have published at least three articles as a lead author in a relevant topic, with at least one article published in the last five years. If this experience is missing, peer reviewers can co-review with a colleague(s) that does have the relevant expertise and experience. **Impartiality:** Peer reviewers should not have any competing interests that can bias their assessment of the work. They should not be close collaborators with authors or be personally associated with them. **Diversity:** To ensure an international perspective, ResearchHub Journal strongly supports geographically diverse peer reviewers being assigned to each submission. #### Peer Review Guidelines ResearchHub Journal recommends that peer reviewers familiarise themselves with the Committee On Publication Ethics' (COPE) ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Peer reviewers are asked to provide constructive and actionable feedback using ResearchHub Journal's structured review template. To ensure a thorough and constructive review, we ask peer reviewers to read the entire preprint version of the manuscript, including figures, supplemental files and data. Feedback should be: * Clear, concise, and well-written * Provide an objective summary and evaluation of the article * Focus on the article's quality rather than novelty * Offer constructive criticism with actionable points * Justify any requests for citations, avoiding self-promotion If the work includes complex statistical analysis or new statistical methods, the Academic Editor may suggest a statistics expert is required as the peer review process progresses. #### Peer Review Model ResearchHub Journal conducts an open and transparent peer review model and uses the NISO standard terminology for peer review to explain the process: **Identity transparency: all identities visible.** Peer review occurs on the preprint version of the manuscript, with the authors' identities available to reviewers and readers. The Academic Editor is named and peer reviewers' identities are published alongside their peer review reports. If multiple people write a peer review report, they can all be identified. **Reviewer interacts with: editor, other reviewers, authors.** Peer reviewers are invited to review by the Academic Editors. Reviewers are also able to read any existing peer review reports and respond to them if they choose. Authors are encouraged to respond to peer review reports openly. Authors must not contact peer reviewers directly, and we ask reviewers to notify us if this has occurred. **Review information published: review reports, submitted manuscript, editor identities, reviewer identities.** The most recent version of the preprint is the version undergoing peer review. When a peer review report is submitted, the ResearchHub Journal Editors will ensure that it meets the peer reviewer guidelines and is then published alongside the reviewer's identity. The peer review report is assigned a DOI, and is citable independently of the work. **Post publication commenting: Open.** ResearchHub Journal has a commenting system that can be used for open discussion between the authors, reviewers, and readers. Comments should focus on the scholarly content presented in the work. Each preprint version of the manuscript will receive a minimum of two reports which are published openly, post publication. After agreeing to review, external peer reviewers typically have 14 days to submit their review. The Academic Editors will follow up with late reviewers and keep the author notified about delays. *** ### Editorial Decision The Academic Editor makes the final decision on each reviewed preprint, consulting with the wider Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief if needed. The publication decision typically happens within 21 days of submission. The Academic Editor considers reviewer feedback and their own evaluation of the manuscript in order to reach a decision whether the preprint can become a version of record. The following decision types are available: * **Reject** — The preprint version of the manuscript has significant flaws, misleading claims or erroneous information undermining the findings and conclusions. * **Major revision** — The preprint version of the manuscript can be accepted after revisions are completed to a satisfactory level, based on the reviewer's comments. * **Minor revision** — The preprint version of the manuscript needs significant revisions and the author must respond in detail to the reviewer's comments to address their concerns. * **Accept** — The preprint version of the manuscript is cohesive and acceptable, and it does not require further scientific or experiment-driven changes to be made. Authors can respond to reviewer feedback and revise their preprint based on the Academic Editor/s and peer reviewer's feedback and publish a new version of the preprint. The Academic Editor may make a new decision based on their own assessment of the revised preprint and the author's response to reviewers, or request additional input from external peer reviewers. After all rounds of revisions are completed, the final editorial decision to publish as a version of record in the ResearchHub Journal is made by the Academic Editor based on the collective feedback from the reviewers and the revisions made by the authors. If the Academic Editor decides to reject a preprint based on its peer review, the author is permitted to submit that preprint version and its associated reviews to another journal. # ResearchHub Foundation Team The builders behind the ResearchHub Foundation #### Team * [**Jeffrey Koury**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffreykoury/), President * [**Arshia Malek**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/arshiamalek/), Vice President of Operations * [**Ruslan Rust**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ruslan-rust/), Scientific Initiatives Lead * [**Gregor Zurowski**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/gzurowski/), Senior Software Engineer * [**Michael Canova**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelcanova/), Software Engineer * [**Nick Tytarenko**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/nick-tytarenko/), Software Engineer * [**Dominikus Brian**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/dominikus-brian-82226161/), Applied AI Researcher * [**Xavier Isidro Pereira-Hernandez**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/xiph/), Outreach Specialist * [**Suramya Asthana**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/suramyaa/), Partnerships Specialist * [**Cole Delyea**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/coledelyea/), User Support Specialist * [**Ben Rein**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-rein-phd-374605ab/), Head of Science Communications * [**Ted Allen**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/theodoreallen/), Creative Director/Videographer * [**Stasia Kolodii**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/stasia-kolodii-2b9b7a190/), Graphic Designer * [**Temi Hamzat**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/hamzat-temiloluwa/), Marketing Assistant #### Editors * [**Ruslan Rust**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ruslan-rust/), Senior Editor - Neuroscience * [**Scott Nelson**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-nelson-8976897/), Associate Editor - Biochemistry * [**Tibor Varga**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/tiborvvarga/), Associate Editor - Epidemiology * [**Ilia Rasskazov**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/iliarasskazov/), Associate Editor - Physics * [**Xavier Isidro Pereira-Hernandez**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/xiph/), Assistant Editor - Chemistry/Catalysis * [**Dominikus Brian**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/dominikus-brian-82226161/), Assistant Editor - Artificial Intelligence/Materials Science * [**Suramya Asthana**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/suramyaa/), Assistant Editor - Longevity * [**Cole Delyea**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/coledelyea/), Assistant Editor - Immunology