> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.researchhub.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.researchhub.com/researchhub-foundation/programs-and-initiatives/peer-review-program/peer-review-guidelines.md). # 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 Proposals to Review On ResearchHub, you can submit peer reviews for funding proposals. #### What You Can Review * Funding Proposals: Reviews focus on feasibility, methodological rigor, potential impact, and alignment with the RFP's stated goals. Each review type will display tailored prompts in the bounty details to guide your feedback. #### How to Find Reviews with Bounties * Use the Peer Review tab to identify 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 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** * 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.