What we're building
Scientific knowledge is a record of proposals, measurements, mistakes, and better explanations. Rank Research makes that record easier to explore: a paper's central claim, an A–F editorial grade, and the evidence that supports or challenges it.
Our researcher index connects those reviews to their authors and collaborations. It shows the actual scope reviewed instead of turning a small sample into an unearned career-wide judgment.
What readers should expect
- Specific claims and publication versions.
- Primary research, corrections, and other direct evidence where available.
- Explained criterion scores with a public calculation.
- Clear distinctions between an observation, an interpretation, and an allegation.
- A working route for corrections, new evidence, and author responses.
Who makes the assessments?
The reviews are published by the Rank Research editorial desk. Research and drafting may be assisted by software; the published assessment is an editorial synthesis, not an endorsement by the reviewed authors or a claim of independent academic peer review. We do not invent reviewer credentials or institutional affiliations.
Independence and interests
Authors cannot buy a grade or pay to remove criticism. Sponsorship, if introduced, will not determine scores. A material relationship to a reviewed paper or author must be stated on the review; a review with an unresolved conflict should remain unpublished.
Our launch library
The initial selection uses well-documented cases where subsequent evidence is particularly informative. It is not a representative sample of science, and its distribution of grades should not be read as an estimate of how often science is wrong.
Explore the grading method ↗