The Peer-reviewed seal
Anyone can publish on ARIADNE, and an article is readable the moment it is published. The Peer-reviewed seal tells reviewed work apart: an article holds it while enough qualified reviewers recommend it. This page gives the exact rules and values. For what to do as an author or a reviewer, see Get the Peer-reviewed seal and Review an article.
Why a seal, and not a gate
Section titled “Why a seal, and not a gate”The question was whether ARIADNE should publish only what had passed a minimum of reviews. It does not, for three reasons:
- No gatekeeper. Anyone can take part from the first day. Making publication wait for reviewers would bring back the gate that ARIADNE exists to remove.
- Readers still choose. The seal appears next to every article in lists, and search can show only sealed articles. A reader who wants reviewed work gets exactly that; a reader who wants the newest preprints gets them too.
- The rule is public and computed. No editor decides. Anyone can read the rules below and check the result for any article.
So publishing stays free and immediate, and the contract (the program on the blockchain) is unchanged. The status “closed version” (“final” on the blockchain) only stops new versions: an author can close an article without any review, and closing never gives or takes the seal.
When an article holds the seal
Section titled “When an article holds the seal”An article holds the seal while both of these are true, counting only the reviews that count:
- at least 2 of them are favourable: they recommend accept or minor revision;
- there are more favourable ones than unfavourable ones (major revision or reject).
The states
Section titled “The states”| Label in the web app | When |
|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed | at least 2 favourable reviews that count, and more favourable than unfavourable |
| Peer-reviewed, suspended | it meets the rule above, but the article is disputed |
| Changes requested | at least 2 unfavourable reviews that count, as many as the favourable ones or more |
| In peer review | it has reviews that count, but neither of the cases above |
| Not peer-reviewed yet | no review counts yet |
A retracted article holds no seal at all, whatever its reviews said.
When a review counts
Section titled “When a review counts”The indexer checks every review against these rules in this order. The first rule that fails is the reason shown on the article page, after “does not count:”. A review that passes them all “counts”.
| Order | Rule | The review does not count when | Shown as |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Not an author | its reviewer is an author of the article | written by an author of the article |
| 2 | Expertise | its reviewer has neither reputation 10 in the article’s primary or secondary field, nor a verified ORCID iD with 3 works in the article’s area on OpenAlex | the reviewer has neither 10 reputation in the article’s fields nor a verified ORCID iD with 3 works in its area on OpenAlex |
| 3 | No conflict: ORCID | the reviewer and an author have the same verified ORCID iD | the reviewer and an author have the same ORCID iD |
| 4 | No conflict: ARIADNE | the reviewer and an author wrote another ARIADNE article together, published within 3 years of the review | the reviewer and an author wrote article #N together (year), less than 3 years from the review |
| 5 | No conflict: OpenAlex | OpenAlex lists works by both of them in the co-authorship window (below) | the reviewer and an author have works together on OpenAlex within 3 years of the review |
| 6 | No conflict: institution | their public ORCID records name the same current employer | the reviewer and an author work at the same institution, as their ORCID records say |
| 7 | Text read | its text has not been read from IPFS yet | its text has not been read from IPFS yet |
| 8 | Length | its text has fewer than 200 words | shorter than 200 words (the count) |
| 9 | Reciprocity, for favourable reviews only | an author of the article gave the reviewer a favourable review in the 2 years before | an author gave the reviewer a favourable review (article #N) less than 2 years before |
“Author” means the submitter or a confirmed co-author. The contract already refuses a review from a confirmed author, so rule 1 is a safeguard. A verified ORCID iD is never required: a reviewer with reputation in the field counts without one.
Expertise
Section titled “Expertise”A reviewer is an expert for the seal in either of two ways:
- Reputation 10 in the article’s primary field or in its secondary field (see Reputation and vote weight). The seal uses the reviewer’s reputation as it stands now and is recomputed when it changes, so a review starts to count once its author reaches 10.
- A verified ORCID iD with at least 3 works in the article’s area on OpenAlex, an open index of scholarly works. This path lets established researchers count from their first day on ARIADNE. Their ORCID iD must be verified first (see Link your ORCID iD).
How the OpenAlex works are counted: the indexer asks OpenAlex for the person’s works grouped by field, where each work
belongs to its main OpenAlex field. OpenAlex has 26 fields, and ARIADNE classifies by the six areas of the OECD fields
(an article’s area is the first part of its field code: 0x0303 is in area 3). The match is made at the level of areas,
and an OpenAlex field may belong to two. The works of every OpenAlex field that belongs to the area of the article’s
primary field are added up, and the same is done for the area of its secondary field; 3 or more in either is enough.
| ARIADNE area | OpenAlex fields whose works count |
|---|---|
| Natural sciences | Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Chemistry; Computer Science; Earth and Planetary Sciences; Environmental Science; Immunology and Microbiology; Mathematics; Physics and Astronomy |
| Engineering and technology | Chemical Engineering; Computer Science; Energy; Engineering; Environmental Science; Materials Science |
| Medical and health sciences | Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Dentistry; Health Professions; Immunology and Microbiology; Medicine; Neuroscience; Nursing; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics |
| Agricultural sciences | Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Veterinary |
| Social sciences | Business, Management and Accounting; Decision Sciences; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; Social Sciences |
| Humanities | Arts and Humanities |
The works per field are read again whenever the person’s ORCID record is checked, which happens weekly.
Conflicts of interest
Section titled “Conflicts of interest”The reviewer must have no conflict with any author of the article:
- The same ORCID iD. Two addresses whose verified ORCID iD is the same person.
- An ARIADNE article written together. The reviewer and an author are both authors of another ARIADNE article published less than 3 years before or after the review.
- Works together on OpenAlex. Both have verified ORCID iDs, and OpenAlex lists at least one work with both as authors, published between 3 years before the pair’s first review and 3 years after its last. “The pair” is this reviewer and this author, across every article (not retracted) where one of them reviewed an article of the other. The indexer counts these shared works again every 30 days, because OpenAlex adds works late, and at once when a new review moves the window.
- The same institution. The public ORCID records of both name the same current employer. Names are compared without case or accents.
The ORCID, OpenAlex and institution checks need both people to have verified ORCID iDs. When one of them has none, only the ARIADNE check applies.
Text and reciprocity
Section titled “Text and reciprocity”The indexer reads each review’s text from IPFS and keeps it only if it matches the review’s fingerprint on the blockchain. Until then the review “has not been read from IPFS yet”, and it is judged again once the text is read. Words are counted as a reader sees them, with the Markdown formatting removed.
Reciprocity applies to favourable reviews only. If an author of the article gave the reviewer a favourable review (on an article the reviewer wrote) in the 2 years before, this favourable review does not count. It stops two people from sealing each other’s work in turn.
The values
Section titled “The values”| Value | Meaning | Rule version 1 |
|---|---|---|
| required | favourable reviews that count needed for the seal | 2 |
| minimum reputation | reputation in the article’s primary or secondary field | 10 |
| OpenAlex works | works in the article’s area, with a verified ORCID iD | 3 |
| co-authorship years | window for ARIADNE and OpenAlex co-authorship conflicts | 3 |
| minimum words | length of a review’s text | 200 |
| reciprocity years | look-back for an author’s favourable review of the reviewer | 2 |
A year here is 365 days. In the indexer’s code these values are SEAL_PARAMS, and the rule version is SEAL_RULE.
A living seal
Section titled “A living seal”The seal is not a stamp given once. It follows the article:
- Later reviews can take it away. Unfavourable reviews that count can bring the article to “In peer review” or “Changes requested”.
- It is recomputed whenever its inputs change: reviews, their texts, reputation, authors, statuses, versions, and the ORCID and OpenAlex checks. A review can therefore start to count (its text is read, its reviewer reaches reputation 10) or stop counting (a shared work appears on OpenAlex).
- It is suspended while the article is disputed and comes back if the dispute is cleared (see Flags, disputes and governance).
- It is gone if the article is retracted.
- The article page says since when the article has held the seal, counted from the review that last earned it.
The reviewed version
Section titled “The reviewed version”The seal names the version that was current when the latest review that counts was written. The article page says either “The reviews that count were written on version 2, the current one” or, after a newer version, that the current version “has not been reviewed yet”. A new version does not remove the seal; it tells readers what was reviewed.
Worked example
Section titled “Worked example”An article by Ana (the submitter) and Ben (a confirmed co-author) has its primary field in Health sciences (area: Medical and health sciences) and its secondary field in Psychology (area: Social sciences). Three reviews arrive:
| Review | Recommendation | Reviewer | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1, Carla | accept | reputation 14 in Health sciences; 640 words | counts (expertise from reputation): favourable |
| 2, Dan | minor revision | no reputation, but a verified ORCID iD with 12 works in Medicine on OpenAlex; he and Ben published an ARIADNE article together two years before this review | does not count: the reviewer and an author wrote an article together, less than 3 years from the review |
| 3, Eva | major revision | a verified ORCID iD with 4 works in Psychology on OpenAlex; 320 words | counts (expertise from works on OpenAlex, through the secondary field): unfavourable |
Dan passes the expertise rule (Medicine belongs to Medical and health sciences), then fails the ARIADNE conflict rule, which is the reason shown. Two reviews count: 1 favourable, 1 unfavourable. The article is In peer review.
Then Farid, with reputation 10 in Psychology, writes 230 words recommending accept. It counts: 2 favourable against 1 unfavourable, so the article is Peer-reviewed from Farid’s review on, and the seal names the version Farid reviewed. Had Farid written 180 words, his review would show “shorter than 200 words (180)” and the article would stay In peer review.
Later Gil, an expert with no conflict, recommends reject in a review that counts. Now there are 2 favourable and 2 unfavourable: the unfavourable ones are at least 2 and as many as the favourable, so the article shows Changes requested and no longer holds the seal.
Computed by the indexer, and reproducible
Section titled “Computed by the indexer, and reproducible”Nothing about the seal is written on the blockchain; the contract does not know it exists. The ARIADNE indexer (the service that reads the blockchain and builds the website’s data) computes it from:
- the blockchain: reviews and their recommendations, authors, statuses, versions and reputation;
- the review texts on IPFS, each checked against its fingerprint;
- public ORCID records and OpenAlex, for verified ORCID iDs.
Anyone who runs an indexer gets the same result from the same inputs; the ORCID and OpenAlex checks are simply asked again from those services (see Verify without trusting ariadne.press). Each result names its rule version, version 1 today, so a change of rules can never pass unnoticed.
Where you see it:
- a badge next to every article in the feed, search results and lists;
- a “Peer review” panel on the article page, with every review marked “counts” or “does not count” and why, and “How the seal works”;
- seal counts on profiles;
- the “Peer-reviewed” filter of Search, for example https://ariadne.press/testnet/search?sealed=true;
- the indexer API:
GET /articles/:idreturnsseal_detailand lists returnseal(see Indexer API).