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
Exemplary Peer Reviews
Preprints
Proposals
Certificate of Peer Review
If you’re interested in receiving a certificate from ResearchHub, please email [email protected].
Contact
If you have questions or need support, please email [email protected].
We appreciate your contributions to improving scientific peer review and advancing open science.
Last updated