Becoming a reviewer

AuthentiSci reviewers must have an ORCID iD and be an author of at least one peer-reviewed research publication.

Make sure your ORCID publications are public

Your publications must be listed on your ORCID record and set to public visibility.

AuthentiSci uses these publications to verify your research background and identify media content relevant to your expertise. If we cannot access your publications through ORCID, you may be unable to contribute reviews or receive appropriate recommendations.

If necessary, update your publication record and visibility settings directly in ORCID.

Contribution policy

When creating an account, you will be asked to accept our contribution policy, which sets out our content standards and prohibited uses.

AuthentiSci uses automated and administrator checks to protect the quality and integrity of contributions. Content may be removed, or reviewing privileges restricted, where these standards are not met.

Set up your research profile

Log in with ORCID and open My Profile from your Dashboard.

Your profile includes two biographies:

• Public biography: displayed on your AuthentiSci profile to help readers understand your background and expertise.
• Private research biography: used by AuthentiSci's recommendation system to help match you with relevant media content. This is not shown publicly.

Use your private research biography to describe expertise that may not be obvious from your publications and to identify topics that you would prefer not to review.

Your public profile also links to your ORCID record.

Choosing what to review

AuthentiSci recommends media content based on your research profile. You may receive personalised review requests by email and can also find opportunities through your Dashboard.

Only review scientific claims that you have sufficient expertise to assess. You do not need to have published on the exact question being discussed, but you should have enough relevant knowledge to assess the evidence confidently.

A recommendation is an invitation, not an expectation to review.

Writing a useful review

A good AuthentiSci review should help a non-specialist understand why the content is strong, misleading, uncertain or incomplete.

Keep your review:

• Expert-led: focus on claims you are qualified to assess.
• Evidence-based: distinguish strong evidence from uncertainty or speculation.
• Impartial: assess the science rather than the author or wider message.
• Accessible: write for an interested member of the public.
• Constructive: explain both strengths and important weaknesses.

Do not simply state that something is misleading or unsupported. Explain why, and add the context needed to understand the issue.

Where useful, link to credible sources that provide further information.

Scoring media content

AuthentiSci reviews assess three areas: Evidence, Balance and Clarity. Full scoring definitions are available here.

Use your written comments to explain the reasoning behind your scores.

Evidence

Consider whether scientific claims are supported appropriately.

Ask:

• Are important claims supported by reliable evidence?
• Does the content accurately represent what the evidence shows?
• Are conclusions proportionate to the strength of the evidence?
• Are important limitations and uncertainties acknowledged?
• Are anecdotes, preliminary findings or associations presented too strongly?

If the evidence is uncertain or insufficient for a firm conclusion, say so clearly.

Balance

Consider whether the content gives a fair and proportionate account of the science.

Ask:

• Are important limitations, perspectives or explanations missing?
• Is disagreement represented in proportion to the evidence?
• Are findings exaggerated or sensationalised?
• Are quotations, statistics or individual studies presented without important context?
• Could commercial, political or other interests be shaping the presentation?

Balance does not mean giving equal weight to unsupported viewpoints. The prominence given to different claims should reflect the strength of the evidence.

Clarity

Consider whether a non-specialist reader is likely to understand the science accurately.

Ask:

• Are important concepts explained clearly?
• Could any wording create a misleading impression?
• Are technical terms explained where necessary?
• Are statistics, risks and uncertainties understandable?
• Do headlines, images or graphs accurately reflect the science?

If additional explanation would help, add it to your review.

Focus on the scientific claims, explain the evidence, and give readers useful context.