ResearchHub Docs
  • ResearchHub Docs
  • Welcome
    • What is ResearchHub?
    • The Problem
      • Research grants incentivize waste
        • Lack of accurate metrics
        • Unintended consequences of modern grant funding
        • The business model of for-profit academic publishers
      • Infrastructural deficiencies
        • Limitations of physical laboratories
        • Outdated format of research outputs
        • Barriers to participation
  • User Support
  • Links
  • ResearchHUb
    • Mission, Vision, Values
    • Journals and Hubs
      • Journals
        • ResearchHub Journal
      • Hubs
    • Product Features
      • Posts
      • Notebook
      • Peer Reviews
      • Grants
    • Reputation (REP)
    • Content Guidelines
    • ResearchHub Team
  • ResearchCoin
    • What is ResearchCoin?
    • Earning RSC
    • RSC Tokenomics
      • RSC Distribution Chart
      • RSC Emission Schedule
  • Contracts and Addresses
  • ResearchHub Foundation
    • What is the ResearchHub Foundation?
    • Partners, Programs, and Contributors
      • Editorial Program
        • Editor Role and Summary
      • Paid Peer Review Program
        • Peer Review Program Guidelines
    • ResearchHub Foundation Team
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  1. ResearchHUb
  2. Product Features

Peer Reviews

How to peer review content on ResearchHub

Last updated 4 months ago

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?