Every credit here was accepted by a publisher, and every review was deliveredAboutGuidesContactSign in
CitePepCitePep
About CitePep

A trust record for the open web.

CitePep is building the internet's contributor reputation graph: a public, portable record of who creates, reviews, corrects and verifies the information we all rely on.

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

Two problems, one missing record

Readers can't tell whether anyone qualified checked what they're reading. The people who do the checking get no credit for it. CitePep answers both with 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: no way to tellA page may be written by a developer, a small team, or someone who simply knows the subject. Nothing on it says whether anyone who actually knows the topic reviewed it.
For experts: no credit, no proofReviewers, editors and specialists quietly keep information accurate, and almost never get named for it, with nowhere to show a track record.
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
ReviewedAuthoredCorrectedPeer reviewCitedOcean heat trendsIPCC methodologySea-level figure 2Coral bleaching MSCited on 3 pagesEMDr. Elena Marsh312, 96% trustOne contributor's node, illustrative
What CitePep is

A contributor identity network and reputation graph

Every contribution is typed, authored, reviewed, edited, corrected or sourced, tied to a real person and a specific page, and counted only once the publisher accepts it. Those edges build each contributor's public profile: a contribution score, a trust score and per-topic authority.

It is
A public record of accepted knowledge work, owned by the person who did it.
It is not
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
Ocean heat content trends, 1955-2024
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.Priya Natarajan, How large language models actually workContributor + publisher
ReviewerRead the page critically and confirmed it holds up before readers saw it.Dr. Elena Marsh, Ocean heat content trends, 1955-2024Reader + publisher
EditorImproved structure and clarity without changing what is true.Dr. Samuel Okafor, Insulin dosing reference guideReader + publisher
CorrectionSpotted something wrong and proposed the exact fix; the publisher accepted it.M. C. Sariyer, Sea-level rise projection, figure 2Everyone who reads the page
Source & citationSupplied the references, or was cited as a trusted source by another page.Dr. Elena Marsh, 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
oceandata.net/sea-level-projections
Before
Global mean sea level is rising at 3.2 mm per year.
After
Global mean sea level is rising at 3.7 mm per year (2006-2018 average).
Source: IPCC AR6 WGI, Ch. 9. Proposed by M. C. Sariyer, accepted by the editor, 12 Jul 2026
Page trust recordPublic
Ocean heat content trends, 1955-2024
climate-explainer.org/ocean-heat-content
Authored, Priya Natarajan3 Mar 2024
Reviewed, Dr. Elena Marsh18 Mar 2024
Corrected, M. C. Sariyer, figure 212 Jul 2026
Cited by, oceandata.net, 2 pages
Status: Verified. 3 named contributors, full timeline public
Peer review findingAuthor only
Manuscript: coral bleaching thresholdsMAJOR
Section 3.2, "bleaching 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. Never the content, the author or the verdict.
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 they submit it, and researchers can be paid to review for others. The reviewer is matched on subject field and on the language the review must be written in, and never comes from the author's own institution.

CitePep is not a journal and does not referee for journals. A review is commissioned by the author, delivered to the author, and takes no part in anyone's editorial decision. Reviewers are paid for completing a review and never for what it concludes, because paying for an outcome is how paid review becomes worthless.

For authors →For reviewers →For journals →
A journal referee
–Decides on publication
–Reports to the editor
–Usually unpaid, often anonymous
–Reads the paper after submission
A CitePep reviewer
✓Decides nothing, advises the author
✓Reports to the author, confidentially
✓Paid per completed review; delivery record on their profile
✓Reads the paper before submission
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 nothing without 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 not a one-time act of publishing; it is a continuous record of review and correction.

Who is behind CitePep

We are building the trust layer for
everything the internet claims is true.

CitePep operates the contributor reputation graph: the attribution, verification and peer-review infrastructure that records who stands behind published information. Every rule we apply is public, versioned, and applied to us as well.

1,752Accepted contributions on the record
1,695Pages carrying a public trust record
199Topics with recorded expertise
WorldwideReviewers matched by field and language
Founder
EBEmir BaycanFounder, CitePep

"Every page you read was written by someone, and checked by someone, or by no one at all. That should not be a mystery. We are making it a matter of record."

Everything we do is inspectable
Editorial standardsEvery rule, versioned and public→Reputation methodHow every score is computed→Pages on recordThe public history of every page→Contact the teamQuestions, press or partnerships→
Common questions

Straight answers

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

No. A badge is a claim; CitePep is a record. Nothing appears unless a named publisher accepted a named contribution to a specific page.

Can reputation be bought or boosted?

No. There is no paid tier that improves a score and no way to buy a place in a directory. Scores come only from accepted contributions.

Is CitePep a journal?

No. It does not referee for journals or take part in editorial decisions. A pre-submission review is commissioned by and delivered to the author.

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 per completed review, never per verdict. Expert profiles are free.

What is never shown?

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

If you have expertise to share, build a contributor profile and start getting credited. If you publish content that needs to stay accurate, see how CitePep works for publishers.

Create an accountContact us