Help us judge which research would benefit most from an independent Unjournal evaluation now. Rate the value of evaluation, not the paper's overall quality. You can rate independently before seeing current scores, or use the quicker ratings-first approach.
Calibration examples teach the scorer what high, medium, and low value of evaluation look like, including cases where a strong paper is not a strong candidate because it is already well checked, narrow in decision relevance, or poorly timed for useful feedback.
The stored team score and the new AI score are separate judgments. Category scores cover decision relevance, evaluability, timing, remaining scrutiny gap, likely influence, and prominence. All are provisional.
Anyone may respond, including anonymously. We review every response before it affects prioritization; nothing here updates the scorer automatically. To have anonymous feedback weighed as attributable evidence, use a consistent pseudonym we can place, or email contact@unjournal.org with the saved UTC timestamp.
If your work is listed, you are welcome to respond through the same form. These are prioritization judgments, not claims about the paper's quality.
Know a paper that would sharpen the scorer — a clear high-value candidate, or a useful boundary case (good paper, low priority)? Add it here. It saves directly to us; no account needed. We weigh suggestions from reviewers we can place — use a checkable pseudonym or email us (see “How the ratings & your feedback are used” at the top of the page).