For evaluators
We commission experts to publicly evaluate and rate research. We pay evaluators, and your evaluation is published and citable.
Why evaluate for The Unjournal?
Few economics journals pay referees, and referee reports are rarely made public. The Unjournal pays evaluators, publishes their work openly, and gives them credit for it.
Paid work: Our current base compensation is $100 for a completed evaluation.
Published & citable: Your evaluation receives a DOI and is published in The Unjournal (ISSN 3071-2173) on PubPub.
Agreed timeline: We agree on a scheduled deadline with you. Generally, we aim for a three-week turnaround.
Compensation
At present, $100 is the compensation we can guarantee for a completed evaluation. We have historically aimed for at least $450 average compensation per evaluation, and met that target in earlier funded cycles through base payments, incentives, and prizes. With more funding, we aim to return to that level and increase compensation where scarce expertise or a particularly demanding assignment warrants it.
Our longer-term compensation approach includes:
Base compensation: $100 for a completed evaluation under the current funding position.
Additional payments: Subject to funding, we may increase compensation for especially useful evaluations, hard-to-source expertise, or specifically requested work.
Prize recognition: We hope to fund further evaluator prizes. Evaluations completed before that funding comes through will still be eligible.
How it works
Join our pool: Complete a simple form with your expertise areas and background. We'll add you to our evaluator database.
Receive invitations: When we have research matching your expertise, we'll reach out with details and timeline. You can accept or decline.
Conduct your evaluation: Review the research using our structured guidelines. Provide written feedback and quantitative ratings across multiple dimensions.
Publication & payment: Unless you were advised otherwise, your evaluation is published on PubPub with a DOI. To claim payment, you complete a brief form; we aim to process all payments within one week.
AI tools in evaluation
Evaluators may use AI tools selectively, as a complement to, not a substitute for, their own expert judgment. Before the evaluation, we recommend and facilitate consistency and 'bug-checking' tools. After evaluators submit, we aim to share state-of-the-art AI evaluations of the paper and AI consistency checks of their evaluation, so they can adjust if they are confident the AI has found an important misunderstanding or omission.
Who we're looking for
We seek evaluators with expertise in quantitative research methods and relevant subject areas. Ideal candidates have:
PhD or equivalent research experience
Expertise in economics, psychology, policy, or related quantitative fields
Track record of published research
Commitment to constructive, substantive feedback
Interest in global priorities research
Ability to assess methodological rigor
Focus areas
We particularly need evaluators with expertise in:
Development economics and global health
Environmental economics and climate policy
Behavioral science and psychology
AI governance and technology policy
Animal welfare research
Meta-science and research methods
Catastrophic and existential risk
More information
Policy updated September 11, 2026
Frequently asked questions
Can I sign my evaluation or stay anonymous?
Choose whether to sign your evaluation publicly or remain anonymous. Your choice, every time.
When am I paid?
We agree the scope, timing, and payment before anyone commits. After you submit, you claim payment through a brief form (usually by Wise transfer); we aim to process all payments within one week.
Will there be evaluator prizes?
We hope so; it depends on funding. If we fund a new prize round, evaluations completed before that funding came through will still be eligible. In 2024-25 we awarded $6,500 in prizes for outstanding evaluations, with public acknowledgment.
Can I use AI tools?
Working policy (April 2026; still evolving, not all aspects formally confirmed): Evaluators may use AI tools selectively. Appropriate uses include looking up or clarifying content in the paper, or running extensive checks that are not feasible to do by hand; in that case the AI-assisted part should appear separately (in a dedicated section, link, or footnote), with at least a hand-checked sample. We encourage evaluators not to use AI tools for the overall evaluation or for the ratings and predictions. Please link to your AI chats where possible and identify any text generated by LLMs. You must stand by everything in your report as your own judgment, and we expect at least 8 hours of human work, over and above any time the AI tools take.
What do you ask of evaluators?
Essentially a standard, high-quality referee report, plus quantitative ratings and predictions (a score and a 90% credible interval for each), and a short questionnaire. Constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work is especially valuable.
Which evaluation form will I use?
Either the newer interactive form or the matching Coda form, unless your evaluation manager gives paper-specific instructions. Academic stream (research aimed at academic journals): the interactive academic form or the Coda academic form. Applied stream (policy, practitioner or other applied research): the interactive applied form or the Coda applied form.
Interested in evaluating?
Join the pool with a short form. We get in touch when research matches your expertise.
Apply to evaluate