An open ledger of scientific claims

Science, examined.
Evidence, ranked.

Big claims deserve a closer look. We trace influential papers back to their evidence—and grade what holds up, what needs work, and what doesn't.

A · B · C · D · F One clear scale. A full explanation behind every letter.
6Papers examined
4Fields in focus
26Sources linked
A–FPublished grading rubric

Follow the evidence

Claims worth a closer look.

All paper reviews ↗
Physics2016 paper

Coincident observations, several analysis approaches, public data and subsequent detections strongly support the discovery. The confidence attached to the event should not be confused with certainty about every inferred source parameter.

More than a letter

A grade you can
look inside.

Every review follows the same five questions. Every score has a reason. Every challenge has somewhere to go.

Read our methodology ↗
  1. 01

    Does the central claim hold up?

    Separate the measured result from the interpretation.

  2. 02

    What do independent checks show?

    Follow replications, corrections, and alternative explanations.

  3. 03

    How much of the record have we reviewed?

    Make coverage visible before making comparisons.

Explore a field

Ideas don't live in silos.

Keep the record moving

Found a claim we should examine?

Send the paper, the claim, and the strongest evidence you have.

Suggest a review ↗