Creating a reviewer account

Scientists or similar experts may be eligible to become a reviewer if they meet the following criteria. Individuals failing to meet these criteria will be unable to contribute reviews.

ORCID

Each reviewer must have an ORCID identification linking them to their affiliations and published works.

Publication record

Reviewers must be a published author of at least one peer-reviewed research article. Articles must be listed on their ORCID record and made publicly visible.

Accept and conform to the contribution policy

On creating an AuthentiSci account, you will be asked to read and accept our contribution policy. This details our content standards and prohibited uses.

Administrator moderation

In addition to automated checks of reviewers and their reviews, we undertake manual checks of reviewer authenticity. Our administrators may remove content or prevent individuals from contributing further content if they are misusing the website or browser extension tool.

Logging in and personalising your account

To view requests, submit reviews or upvote content from others, reviewers must log in to their personal account either through the website or the web browser extension. Logging in takes place via the ORCID API.

Once logged in, from your Dashboard, go to My Profile to customise your bio. This page is public, links to your ORCID account, and displays a summary of all your activity on AuthentiSci.

Generating reviews

Reviewers are tasked with scoring media articles according to three categories: Evidence, Balance, and Clarity. These scores are briefly defined here. Comments should then be used to justify each of the scores given. Review content must remain impartial and objective. To ensure reviews contribute meaningfully to public understanding, reviewers should provide accessible explanations that clarify the underlying science, evidence, or reasoning behind their assessments. When critiquing content, include contextual information that helps the reader grasp why a certain claim or conclusion is robust or flawed. Each review should aim to enhance the reader's ability to critically assess similar claims, fostering analytical skills and promoting informed public discourse.

In most instances, reviews should be provided by experts in the relevant field. Use your Dashboard to identify review requests that match your scientific area. Whilst you may be able to provide helpful guidance on articles outside of your expertise, make sure that such reviews are well researched beforehand.

Give consideration to the following when writing reviews.

Evidence

Assess the quality of the evidence presented in the article. Look for references to peer-reviewed scientific studies or reputable sources of information. Provide cautionary advice for articles that rely heavily on anecdotal evidence or unsupported claims.

Advise readers of the uncertainty level, or if the current evidence is insufficient to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Balance

Balanced content should present different perspectives on the topic, particularly if there are conflicting sources of evidence. Check for unnecessary exaggeration or sensationalism which may skew the reader's understanding of the scientific implications. Verify whether quotes or other selected items have been taken out of context.

Pay attention to any potential biases, including political, ideological, or commercial. Does the article represent an objective view of the science or might it be influenced by external agendas?

Clarity

Assess how well the article explains complex scientific concepts in a clear and understandable manner for the general audience. If additional detail would aid comprehension, consider adding this to your review.

Examine the use of visual aids and determine whether they add clarity or confusion.