Making research better by evaluating what really matters
The Unjournal is not a journal. We don't publish research. Instead, we commission (and pay for) open, rigorous expert evaluation of publicly-hosted research.
What we do and why it matters
We aim to make rigorous research more impactful and impactful research more rigorous.
The academic journal system is out of date, discourages innovation, and encourages rent-seeking. We make it easier for researchers to get feedback and credible ratings of their work, so they can focus on doing better research rather than journal-shopping.
We provide journal-independent evaluation: expert assessments with quantitative ratings and detailed feedback, all made publicly available. Authors keep full control of their work and can submit it anywhere else.
We currently focus on quantitative work that informs global priorities, especially in economics, policy, and social science. We focus on what's practically important to researchers, policy-makers, and the world.
What an evaluation looks like
7 June 2026
Observational price variation in scanner data cannot reproduce experimental price elasticities
We prioritized this paper because of its importance to The Unjournal's pivotal questions on plant-based vs. animal product substitution.
The evaluators provide complementary perspectives: Evaluator 1 raises important questions about the plausibility of the experimental estimates (the “margin puzzle”), while Evaluator 2 focuses on the methodological issues regarding functional form restrictions in demand estimation. The authors provide a detailed response.
Evaluator 1
While the paper documents a striking divergence between the two approaches, I argue that the experimental estimates themselves face a plausibility challenge: they imply profit opportunities far exceeding observed industry margins.
Evaluator 2
The most natural takeaway is that constant-elasticity log-linear demand is too restrictive here. A useful extension would quantify how much of the shift is explained by curvature using flexible demand estimates.
Evaluation summary and all ratings · Authors' response
Each evaluation package has an evaluation summary from the evaluation managers; the evaluations themselves, usually two (sometimes three), each with its own DOI; and the authors' response, when they choose to give one. Evaluators can sign their work or stay anonymous.
Recently evaluated
Fewer evaluations have come out this year than before. We've put more of our effort into Pivotal Questions, and we're revitalizing the evaluation pipeline, with priorities set while we wait for grant funding: research likely to get media or policy attention, especially AI economics and governance, with fast turnaround.
22 September 2026
The Value of Existential Risk Mitigation
Arvo Muñoz Morán (Rethink Priorities)
Applied and policy stream
20 May 2026
Yellow Vests, Pessimistic Beliefs, and Carbon Tax Aversion
Douenne and Fabre
Independent evaluation
26 January 2026
A review of GiveWell's discount rate
Kudymowa, Hu, Basnak, Hird (Rethink Priorities)
Evaluation package; the manager flags caveats on two ratings
Each line is one evaluator's overall rating (0–100): the mark is the midpoint, the bar the 90% credible interval where the evaluator gave one. All evaluations on PubPub
Get involved
Researchers and authors
Suggest your research, or someone else's, for evaluation. It's non-exclusive: you can still submit it to any journal.
Evaluators
We pay evaluators for their expertise. Your evaluation is published and citable, so you get real credit for review work.
Funders and policymakers
Commission evaluations of research your decisions depend on, or suggest a pivotal question.
Our supporters
We're grateful to the organizations that have funded our work and helped build open research evaluation: the Survival and Flourishing Fund, the Long-Term Future Fund and the EA Infrastructure Fund.
The Unjournal is a registered nonprofit; we don't charge fees. Want to support open research evaluation? Learn more or get in touch.