Only accepted work is recordedAboutGuidesContactSign in
CitePepCitePep
About CitePep

About CitePep

A trust record for the open web.

CitePep keeps a public record of the real people who write, check and correct the information we rely on, so readers can see who stands behind a page, and the experts who keep it accurate get credit under their own name.

Who wrote itAuthors, on the record.
Who checked itNamed reviewers with a public history.
What changedEvery accepted correction, with its date.
Why CitePep exists

About CitePep: two problems, one missing record

Readers deserve to know who checked what they read, and the people who check deserve credit. CitePep gives both a single public record of who stood behind a page, and what a publisher accepted.

A typical page today
How to read your blood test results
By Staff · Updated 2023Medically reviewed
?Who is "Staff"?
?Reviewed by whom, and when?
?Has anything been corrected since?
For readers: who checked this?A page may be written by a developer, a small team, or someone who simply knows the subject. Readers want to know whether someone who knows the topic reviewed it.
For experts: credit and proofReviewers, editors and specialists keep information accurate, and deserve to be named for it with a track record they can show.
What CitePep addsA verifiable record of every accepted contribution, tied to a real person and a specific page. Experts get public credit; publishers get a trust record; readers get an answer.
The one question it answersWho stands behind this information?See how it works
Reviewed
Authored
Corrected
Peer review
Cited
Overthinking and Rumination
IPCC methodology
Rumination research
A disputed claim MS
Corrected 1249 pages
CAContributor A4996 · 99.5% trust
One contributor's node · illustrative
What CitePep is

A public record of who did what, on which page

Each piece of work is recorded with its type, written, reviewed, edited, corrected or sourced, the verified person who did it, and the exact page. It counts only once the page’s publisher approves it. Together these records make up each person’s public profile: how much they have contributed, how often publishers accept their work, and which topics they are trusted in.

It is
A public record of accepted knowledge work, owned by the person who did it.
It is separate from
A badge you buy, a guest-posting marketplace or a paid authority score.
Reputation
Earned only through accepted work, weighted by consistency over time.
The rules
Public, versioned, and applied to everyone: including us. Editorial standards →
What gets recorded

Five contribution types, each with its own credit

Authorship is only one way to make content trustworthy. Each role is recorded separately, earns its own credit and topic authority, and shows up by name on the page.

How one page's credit splitsIllustrative
Overthinking and Rumination
Author · 34%Reviewer · 26%Editor · 12%Correction · 18%Source & citation · 10%
Authoring and reviewing carry the most weight in the contribution score; corrections count for everyone who reads the page.
ContributionWhat it meansExample on recordWho benefits
AuthorWrote the original content; accountable for what it says.Emir Baycan · How large language models actually workContributor + publisher
ReviewerRead the page critically and confirmed it holds up before readers saw it.Emir Baycan · Overthinking and RuminationReader + publisher
EditorImproved structure and clarity without changing what is true.Reviewer · Insulin dosing reference guideReader + publisher
CorrectionSpotted something wrong and proposed the exact fix; the publisher accepted it.Contributor B · Overthinking and rumination projection, figure 2Everyone who reads the page
Source & citationSupplied the references, or was cited as a trusted source by another page.Emir Baycan · cited on 3 pagesContributor + reader
Records, as they appear

Three kinds of entry, taken from the record

Illustrative examples showing exactly what a reader, a publisher or a journal can inspect, and what stays private.

Accepted correctionPublic
publisher.example/overthinking-and-rumination
Before
Global mean baseline is rising at the published rate per year.
After
Global mean baseline is rising at the current rate per year (2006–2018 average).
Source: IPCC AR6 WGI, Ch. 9 · Proposed by Contributor B · Accepted by the editor, 9 Aug 2026
Page trust recordPublic
Overthinking and Rumination
publisher.example/overthinking-and-rumination
Authored · Author9 Aug 2026
Reviewed · Reviewer9 Aug 2026
Corrected · Contributor B · figure 29 Aug 2026
Cited by · whennotesfly.com · 2 pages–
Status: Verified · 3 named contributors · full timeline public
Peer review findingAuthor only
Manuscript: canopy stress thresholdsMAJOR
§3.2: "…thermal stress onset at +1°C above the local maximum monthly mean." The threshold is asserted without the degree-heating-week context the cited source (Hughes et al., 2018) uses; a referee will ask for it.
One of 7 findings · 2 major, 4 minor, 1 note · Delivered in 6 days
What's public: the reviewer's completed count and on-time rate. The content, the author and the verdict stay private.
Peer review before submission

The same idea runs a second service

A researcher can have a manuscript read by a verified expert in their field before submitting it, and researchers can be paid to review for others. Reviewers are matched on field and on the language of the review, from outside the author’s institution.

✓Private to the authorThe review stays private to the author, who can attach it to a journal submission.
✓Paid for the work, whatever the verdictThe fee is set by the reviewer and frozen when they accept.
✓Only two facts are publicA reviewer’s completed count and on-time rate.
Get a paper reviewedBecome a reviewer →

CitePep is an independent review service; journals run their own refereeing.

Day 0Paper described
Day 2Reviewer accepts
Day 7Findings delivered
Review report · R-2041Communication · delivered a day early · visible to the author only2 major3 minor1 note
MAJORMethods §3.2“Thermal stress onset at +1°C above the local maximum monthly mean.”The threshold is given without degree-heating-week context. Report DHW per site.
MINORFigure 4Axis units missing on the anomaly panel.Add °C and the baseline period to the label.
Private to the author · one round of clarifying questions
Principles

What we believe

Four principles behind every decision about the product and the record.

Credit should follow real work

The people who make content accurate deserve to be named for it: the reviewer and the corrector as much as the author.

Trust must be verifiable

"Reviewed by an expert" means most with a name, a date and a public history behind it.

Reputation belongs to the person

Your contribution history is yours. It should travel with you across every publisher and institution you work with.

Accuracy is ongoing

Keeping information true is a continuous record of review and correction.

A note from the founder

Trust on the web shouldn’t depend on taking someone’s word for it.

Every day, people make decisions about their health, money and safety from pages that say “reviewed by an expert”, and they deserve to know who that expert was. The researchers and specialists who fix those pages deserve the credit.

CitePep makes that happen with something simple: a public record. If a named person checked a page, you can see it. If they corrected it, you can see exactly what changed. And the credit stays with them, wherever they work next.

We’re building it in the open, with every rule public and versioned. If you think we’ve got something wrong, I want to hear it.

EBEmir BaycanFounder, CitePepWrite to me →
How we got here

From one missing name to a public record

Every change →
  1. 2025The ideaPut a name behind every “reviewed by an expert”, and give the people doing the checking credit.
  2. Early 2026First pages on the recordPublishers verify their domains and accept the first named corrections.
  3. Spring 2026Pre-submission review opensAuthors commission private reviews from verified experts; reviewers are paid per completed review.
  4. Autumn 2026Communities and journalsVerified members ask, check and fix together in public. Journals search the reviewer pool.
Editorial standardsEvery rule, versioned and public→Reputation methodHow every score is computed→Pages on recordThe public history of every page→
Common questions

Straight answers

Everything else is in the editorial standards →
Is CitePep a trust badge?

A badge is a claim; CitePep is a record. Everything on it is a named contribution a named publisher accepted on a specific page.

Can reputation be bought or boosted?

Scores come only from accepted contributions, and every directory place is earned the same way.

Is CitePep a journal?

A pre-submission review is commissioned by and delivered to the author. Editorial decisions stay with journals.

Who pays, and for what?

Publishers pay per reviewed page after a fixed quote. Authors pay the reviewer’s own fee, frozen on acceptance. Reviewers are paid the same for every completed review. Expert profiles are free.

What stays private?

Contact details, payout information, the content of any review, which manuscripts a reviewer was sent, and declined or unaccepted work.

Who holds editorial authority?

The publisher or editor who controls the page. They accept or decline every contribution and choose where the attribution block appears.

Get involved

Something else? Talk to us →
You know a subjectGet public credit for checking and correcting what’s published in your field.Build a contributor profile →You publish contentShow readers who checked your pages, and fix errors with named specialists.Put your pages on the record →You’re writing a paperHave a verified expert read it before you submit: privately.Get a paper reviewed →