Evidence and impact
The Unjournal publishes independent expert assessments of research relevant to global priorities. The evaluations and ratings help funders, policymakers, researchers, and other readers understand the evidence and use it in their work.
Each evaluation package sets out expert judgments about a paper's methods, claims, relevance, and uncertainty. Readers can examine the reasoning, ratings, and any author response.
Detailed evaluations and ratings help readers assess a paper's strengths, weaknesses, credibility, and relevance.
Funders, policymakers, researchers, and other users may update a view, recommendation, research agenda, or decision.
Feedback and encouragement can lead authors to revise a paper, clarify claims, correct errors, or pursue more useful research.
An Unjournal evaluation may carry limited career value at present. Over time, a positive evaluation could become a useful signal alongside journal placement.
We can track formal responses and revised papers because they leave public records. Use by funders, policymakers, researchers, and other readers is harder to track systematically.
The figures below summarize the April 2026 version of our author-response and paper-revision dataset.
| Outcome | Observed |
|---|---|
| Evaluation packages tracked | 57 |
| Papers manually assessed for updating | 22 |
| Clear evidence of substantive updating | 5 of 22 |
| Authors stating an intention to update | 7 of 22 |
| At least some positive update signal | 15 of 22 |
| Formal or informal author responses | 19 |
| Formal written author responses | 16 |
Denominators differ. Many records have not yet been coded. "Not yet assessed" should not be interpreted as "no response" or "no revision."
These examples have public records that readers can inspect. They show what evaluation contributed in particular cases; they do not tell us The Unjournal's average effect.
GiveWell staff publicly described our work on a water-treatment meta-analysis as influential and said they had followed it internally while considering a replication. A research director later confirmed that the evaluation was useful. It found no major failure in the analysis and flagged issues needing attention, including the exclusion of some studies.
Evaluation package · GiveWell's water-quality review · Public discussion
An evaluator identified an error in a proof supporting a central result. The public record helps research users understand what was wrong and what remains supported. The authors acknowledged the problem and confirmed a corrected proof; the main result was preserved, but the reasoning was corrected and made clearer.
Our evaluation and HLI's 20-page response record agreements, disagreements, and methodological questions about its StrongMinds and Friendship Bench cost-effectiveness work. This gives funders and other research users a more informative public record. It does not by itself show a later funding change.
Larisa Cioaca described the evaluation as beneficial for both senior and junior coauthors. She said the feedback was comparable to that of leading journals and that it improved the paper. She also emphasized the value of leaving a public record of the discussion, including the concerns raised and the authors' response.
Nine participants completed the post-workshop survey, out of roughly 27 attendees. Seven reported improved understanding of practitioner priorities and six reported improved understanding of how academic research could be useful. Several described specific changes in beliefs or research priorities.
The sample is small and selected, and the results are self-reported. The public report includes positive and critical feedback.
Work published by the Center for Global Development, PLOS Biology, and Royal Society Open Science has cited The Unjournal in discussions of research publishing and open evaluation. Asterisk discussed it as a possible model for helping policymakers see how research was assessed and improved over time. These citations place The Unjournal in a wider discussion about separating research evaluation from journal publication.
Asterisk · Center for Global Development · PLOS Biology · Royal Society Open Science
We can directly observe evaluations, ratings, author responses, and some paper revisions. We have less complete evidence on who uses them and whether they change funding, policy, or later research.
Our records also include weak and negative feedback. Some authors said an evaluation arrived too late or added little beyond earlier journal reports. Others found some suggestions useful and others beyond the paper's scope. Timing, evaluator fit, and relevance to an active research or decision process seem to matter.
Paper revisions usually reflect several inputs. Workshop surveys are small and self-selected. These records show engagement and specific changes, but they do not give a clean estimate of The Unjournal's overall effect.
We will keep adding public evidence as we get it, including cases where an evaluation had little or no apparent effect.
We use different pages for different jobs. This page is the short public overview; the links below carry the detail.
Evidence reviewed July 31, 2026. Headline author-response figures are from the April 2026 dataset and should be updated when that dataset changes.
If an Unjournal evaluation affected a decision, recommendation, research agenda, or paper, or if a claim on this page needs correction, please contact contact@unjournal.org.
