Preprint Status
Identify work that has not completed formal peer review or final publication.
The JR Institute intends to use clear, evidence-based status labels and badges so readers can distinguish ordinary preprints, moderated records, reviewed work, replicated findings, available data, corrections, and future institutional verification.
This page presents a planned public standard. Final badge designs, eligibility criteria, review forms, verification authorities, expiration rules, and revocation procedures should be approved before public use.
Readers may mistake repository acceptance, moderation, institutional affiliation, or data availability for scientific validation.
The Institute should define every status clearly, link it to evidence, and remove or revise it when the underlying conditions change.
Identify work that has not completed formal peer review or final publication.
State that basic repository screening occurred without implying scientific endorsement.
Describe the review model, responsible body, date, and available review record.
Mark available data, software, methods, protocols, and computational environments accurately.
Distinguish attempted replication, partial confirmation, independent reproduction, and unresolved results.
Reserve future institutional verification for records meeting published, documented, and reviewable criteria.
This policy is intended to apply to labels, icons, badges, seals, verification statements, review-status notices, replication markers, availability claims, corrections, withdrawals, and related visual or textual status indicators.
Every record should identify its current scholarly status, such as preprint, technical report, working paper, accepted manuscript, final publication, dataset, software release, correction, withdrawal, or retraction.
Status labels should remain visible near the title and recommended citation.
A moderation label may indicate that the record passed scope, identity, metadata, integrity, legal, safety, or technical screening.
It should not imply that the Institute verified the findings, reproduced the analysis, endorsed the conclusions, or completed formal peer review.
“Accepted by the repository” and “scientifically validated” are different claims and must never share an ambiguous badge.
A peer-review label should identify the review model, reviewing publication or body, date, version reviewed, and whether reports or decision letters are public.
Editorial screening, invited commentary, community discussion, and post-publication review should be labeled separately.
Availability badges should link directly to the relevant repository record and should describe what is actually available.
Availability does not by itself establish completeness, usability, validation, or successful reproducibility.
Replication markers should state who performed the work, whether the original authors participated, what methods or data were reused, and the degree of agreement.
Results may be labeled as reproduced, partially reproduced, not reproduced, inconclusive, or under active review, with links to the supporting record.
JR Verified is intended as a future Institute designation for work that completes a defined methodological, documentary, integrity, and reproducibility review.
Final criteria may include:
The designation should not guarantee universal truth, future accuracy, safety for every use, or endorsement of policy conclusions.
Verification and badge decisions should be made by qualified persons without unmanaged financial, professional, personal, competitive, or institutional conflicts.
Authors, sponsors, donors, executives, and partners should not award or retain a badge through influence outside the published criteria.
Badges may require renewal when data links fail, software becomes unavailable, corrections alter conclusions, new evidence appears, or verification criteria change.
Revoked or revised status should remain visible in the record history, with the date and principal reason.
The Institute may require correction of false, outdated, altered, or unauthorized use of its badges, seals, status language, or verification marks.
Authors may appeal denial, modification, expiration, or revocation based on procedural error, new evidence, conflict, or incorrect application of criteria.
Framework date: July 2026
Inquiries may concern eligibility, evidence, reviewer independence, badge meaning, expiration, correction, revocation, appeals, or unauthorized use.
Identify the record, version, requested designation, supporting evidence, reviewer relationship, and publication status.
Contact the Institute