ReviewerBase / A proposal for nonprofit infrastructure
One shared reviewer network for journals and conferences. Coordinate expertise, availability, and review recognition — with credits earned for reviews and spent on submissions.
Help make it happen01 / The problem
This pressure is already changing policy: ICLR’s 2027 submission policies address submission volume and low-quality, AI-generated content.
We can let peer review deteriorate, or design a better system. ReviewerBase aims to do the latter!
02 / Our proposal
A common pool for journals and conferences across the publishing system, with expertise, availability, and contact preferences maintained by reviewers. Review requests go through ReviewerBase, without giving venues reviewer email addresses. Venues can use discovery, availability, and review recognition without adopting credits.
Participating venues can award credits for confirmed reviews and accept them for submissions. A credit is a credit, wherever it was earned: venues accepting credits count them equally across the network. Venues can set their own submission requirements, with shared safeguards governing credit issuance. The goal is to attach costs to submissions and remunerate reviews at the same time.
The intended effect: more reviews, fewer low-quality submissions. Where venues adopt credits, reviewing earns submission capacity; requiring credits gives authors a reason to not submit low-quality work.
03 / Expected benefits
04 / Conditions for this to work
Integrations with ORCID and editorial platforms so contributors do not have to maintain another isolated record.
Prevent fake reviews, duplicate credits, and unlimited credit issuance. Protect confidential data and provide fair entry routes for researchers without review opportunities.
Community governance should protect the system from control by a single publisher or commercial owner. Nonprofit status needs transparent rules and oversight.
05 / Questions
These are proposed principles. We will agree on detailed policies with pilot participants.
Yes. Reviewer discovery, availability, invitation preferences, and review recognition are useful on their own. Credits are an optional layer; venues retain control over their editorial policies.
We do not rule out payments. Paying reviewers is hard to coordinate without shared reviewer infrastructure. Once our infrastructure is in place, monetary payments can easily be built on top, allowing journals to offer real money for reviews. However, there is also a gaming risk, which is why it is not part of our core concept right now.
A lack of credits should not exclude newcomers or researchers with limited review opportunities. Credit pilots need fair entry routes, such as waivers, before introducing submission requirements. The exact arrangements remain open.
An authorized representative of the journal or conference confirms completion under a disclosed policy. Records identify the confirming venue and prevent duplicate credit claims. Confirmation establishes that a review took place, not provide an objective rating of its scientific quality.
When acknowledging a review, editors can provide a non-public quality score. These scores help guide future review requests, so reviewers who consistently submit low-quality reviews are invited less often.
Review requests go through ReviewerBase, without sharing reviewers’ email addresses. Reviewers can manage their availability and contact preferences, respond to invitations, and pause new requests. This helps venues respect reviewers’ capacity while protecting their contact data.
Researchers should control their availability, contact preferences, and participation. Access to reviewing activity should be permission-controlled. Confidential reports should remain with the relevant venue wherever possible, and personal contact details should not become a commercial product. Specific access and retention rules still need to be defined.
06 / The project
Contact: thomas.wolgast@openscientia.org
We are validating the idea by asking researchers and venues to express interest. If a certain number of reviewers and institutions participate, we will build it.
ReviewerBase is a concept for nonprofit, community-governed infrastructure. You can express interest below or contact Thomas directly to share feedback.
07 / Take part
The more researchers, journals, conferences, and institutions participate, the more useful the shared pool and the credit system become.
Express interest in updates, help define the rules, or discuss joining as a partner.
