Rating calculations

Here's an explanation of how our rating system works.

The rating scale goes from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest).

Scientist rating questionnaire

Who am I to question these authorities?:

• [ 5 ]  Expert in a related field
• [ 4 ]  Colleague
• [ 3 ]  Current/old student
• [ 2 ]  Spouse, family member, neighbor, other related party
• [ 1 ]  Other

Do you think that the work of this author is useful for the humanity?:

• [ 5 ]  Very useful
• [ 4 ]  I am not sure
• [ 3 ]  Not useful
• [ 2 ]  Useless
• [ 1 ]  Contra-productive

Contribution to the world of science:

• [ 5 ]  New Einstein
• [ 4 ]  Some contribution
• [ 3 ]  Not sure
• [ 2 ]  There isn't any contribution
• [ 1 ]  What contribution?

Teaching skills:

• [ 5 ]  Extraordinary
• [ 4 ]  Good teacher
• [ 3 ]  Not sure
• [ 2 ]  Confusing or messy
• [ 1 ]  Complete lack of communication skills

Research skills:

• [ 5 ]  Extraordinary
• [ 4 ]  Very original
• [ 3 ]  Not sure
• [ 2 ]  Somehow original
• [ 1 ]  Copy and paste

Writing skills:

• [ 5 ]  Should be professional writer
• [ 4 ]  Very good
• [ 3 ]  Average
• [ 2 ]  Needs improvement
• [ 1 ]  Illiterate

Originality:

• [ 5 ]  Has the unique approach
• [ 4 ]  Somewhat original
• [ 3 ]  Average
• [ 2 ]  Just polishing other's research
• [ 1 ]  Copycat

---

Paper rating questionnaire

Who am I to question these authorities?:

• [ 5 ]  Expert in the field
• [ 4 ]  Expert in a related field
• [ 3 ]  Grad student
• [ 2 ]  Undergrad student
• [ 1 ]  Other

Scientific merit: How important is this research?

• [ 5 ]  Conclusions give an significant advance in human knowledge
• [ 4 ]  High quality
• [ 3 ]  Relevant research
• [ 2 ]  The study has no scientific merit
• [ 1 ]  Obsolete, already seen and solved in Antic times

Rate the overall quality of the paper:

• [ 5 ]  Excellent
• [ 4 ]  High quality
• [ 3 ]  Average
• [ 2 ]  Low quality
• [ 1 ]  Shouldn't be published

Writing, structure and presentation:

• [ 5 ]  Paper is in a format that can be replicated by others
• [ 4 ]  Clearly formulated
• [ 3 ]  Not sure
• [ 2 ]  Logical connections are left out
• [ 1 ]  Poorly written

Data quality and Analysis: How would you best describe data quality and analysis used?

• [ 5 ]  Well defined and sufficient data
• [ 4 ]  Missing data was taken into account
• [ 3 ]  Not sure
• [ 2 ]  Data and analysis methods are biased
• [ 1 ]  Misrepresenting the information to support conclusion

Accuracy: Do the data support the conclusion?

• [ 5 ]  Present all perspectives and uses valid analysis for proof
• [ 4 ]  Accurate
• [ 3 ]  Not sure
• [ 2 ]  Other interpretations might be consistent with the data
• [ 1 ]  Connection between the data and the interpretation is ilogical

Originality: How would you rate originality of this paper?

• [ 5 ]  Inventive approach to a new field of research
• [ 4 ]  New approach toward an old subject
• [ 3 ]  Some originality
• [ 2 ]  Nothing new
• [ 1 ]  Copy and paste

---

Rating scheme

We use the following scheme to convert the number scale into descriptive ratings: