Only accepted work is recordedAboutGuidesContactSign in
CitePepCitePep

Sitemap

Every public page on citepep.com, grouped by section.

Pages listed56
Sections6
Last updated4 October 2026

Platform

6
HomeHow it worksPricingAboutContactPress

Services

8
For publishersExpert reviewFact-checkingMedical content reviewFinance content reviewFor agenciesFor journalsAttribution blockNotification emailsShare imagesAPI documentation

Explore the record

12
ContributorsReviewersPublishersPages on recordOpen requestsCommunity (public threads)All communitiesCommunity page (example)Thread (example)Contributor profile (example)Reviewer profile (example)Publisher profile (example)Journal profile (example)Page record (example)

Research checks

12
Expert panelsPanel statement (example)Split statement (example)Not-enough-evidence statement (example)Panel forming (example)Panel request tracker (example)Living reviewsReplication requestsNegative resultsDataset & code recordsSource alertsClaim map

Accounts

9
Sign inJoin as contributorJoin as reviewerGet your paper reviewedContributor dashboardPublisher dashboardAuthor dashboardReviewer dashboardJournal dashboardLiving reviews & panels (reviewer)Panel workspace

Guides

14
Guides libraryAuthor guidesReviewer handbookWhat CitePep recordsHow attribution worksWriting a correctionHow reputation is calculatedHow pre-submission review worksYMYL contentWriting an author bioClaiming pages you wroteHandling a correctionChoosing sourcesActing on major findingsHow the community works

Standards & policies

10
Editorial standardsReputation methodAll policiesTerms of servicePrivacy policyCookie policyCookie settingsConflict of interest policyReviewer payment termsComplaints and disputesGlossary of terms

Community threads

21
c/peer-review-practice · Reviewer call: technical explainers: method and sourcing and thermal stress (2 places, closes 10 Oct)c/peer-review-practice · How we confirm completed reviews on CitePepc/explainers · Is this figure still the right one to cite?c/technology · Is “fastest in 3,000 years” supported, or is it overstated?c/peer-review-practice · Responding to major findings in ecology papersc/technology · Is it accurate to say we “will pass 1.5°C by 2030”?c/peer-review-practice · What makes a major finding actionable? Five things I put in every onec/explainers · Accepted: satellite baseline records start in 1993, not 1990c/peer-review-practice · A reviewer flagged “site selection bias” as major. How do people answer that without new fieldwork?c/publishers · We are looking for an oceanographer to review six Watershed hydrology pagesc/publishers · Does showing corrections publicly hurt trust? Our six-month numbersc/technology · This page may still use an ocean-warming figure that was later correctedc/statistics · How should an explainer describe a 95% confidence interval?c/explainers · Reached Trusted in Explainers: 10 accepted contributionsc/endocrinology · Starting dose of metformin looks too high on a patient guidec/personal-finance · We logged 14 corrections after the budget: here is what readers noticedc/explainers · Does “ice-free Regional by 2035” match current projections?c/technology · Is the “1 in 3 coastal cities” flooding figure from a real study?c/explainers · whennotesfly.com’s Regional page still shows the 2023 snowpack minimumc/peer-review-practice · How long should a response-to-reviewers letter be?c/peer-review-practice · Is it worth a second pre-submission review after a big revision?