ScienceBank is indexed on CrossRef, Google Scholar, ORCID, and ResearchGate.

We are in the process of being indexed in other major databases, like PubMed and Web of Science. Although we are a relatively new platform, we are actively working to ensure that our publications meet the standards required for inclusion in these widely recognized databases. Importantly, all content published prior to our indexing will be backdated, ensuring that your research will be indexed in these major databases in the future.

Regarding our impact factor, it will be calculated once we have sufficient data from our published works. In the meantime, we are committed to maintaining rigorous standards.

This commitment to quality and accessibility is at the core of our mission to advance scientific research through transparent and innovative peer-review processes.

There are two aspects:
a. how reviewers give feedback and
b. how papers are matched to the right experts.

How do reviewers give feedback?
All communities at ScienceBank adhere to core Editorial Policies, which can be further augmented. One fundamental policy requirement is for reviewers to provide a "Constructive Expert Review," a process that fosters a sense of collaboration and mentorship. This differs from traditional peer review in several critical aspects. Traditional peer review primarily determines whether a paper should be accepted or rejected. But the most crucial element of Constructive Expert Review (CER) is not the acceptance or rejection decision, but instead providing an independent opinion about the academic quality of the work and specific recommendations for improving the work, thinking like a collaborator or mentor while maintaining impartiality and standards.

How are papers matched with the right experts?
ScienceBank helps communities grow around key domain experts who are vetted. They help to build editorial teams in small ‘pods’. These decentralized pods are assigned papers matching their expertise and are required to deliver their reviewers within designated timelines based on their availability. Editors play a crucial role in this process, having special privileges to prioritize the work of authors by making feedback from reviews as In Scope or Out of Scope. This ensures authors focus their time effectively, addressing the most important feedback needed to get their work published and feel guided and supported throughout the process.

To attract submissions, onboard editors, increase our pool of reviewers, we are supporting communities to create inaugural editions (i.e Community Editions). There can be multiple Community Editions within a single community. Each edition will pose a key topic or question and will accept 5 submissions from the network. Each Community Edition will have a lead editor who will also write a editorial about the Edition.

Members can publish and disseminate their work to the relevant community, with their work being promoted through ScienceBank’s online marketing channels. They also have the opportunity to collaborate with peers in the review process, expanding their expertise, growing their network, and gaining recognition in their field. By joining as a reviewer, you can begin your journey toward becoming an editor, working alongside the chief editor to establish domain review standards. Reviewers and editors can enrich their CVs with valuable experience, receive compensation for reviewing papers, and be acknowledged for their contributions to their field's success.

ScienceBank is actively seeking opportunities to grow with new communities. You can lead a national or regional community based on language, your lab, research group, or institution. If you are interested in founding a community in a domain not yet covered by ScienceBank or wish to lead a sub-community within an existing domain, please fill in the form on our website. Your application will be reviewed by our editorial team, along with domain leaders or relevant members of the Editorial Board. Selection criteria can be flexible depending on the type of community that you want to create. We will assess research quality, expertise, and publication history, among other criteria. We will promptly communicate a proposal that meets your needs and objectives.

ScienceBank invites senior leaders across domains, typically Professors, to build a team of editors from their network. These community leaders work as traditional ‘Chief Editors.’ They will ensure the Community has a mission, delivers publications to the desired standard, and ensure the right level of experts are involved. They are also responsible for making the Community grow in status and size.

Yes. ScienceBank is a platform that offers support to communities to publish by providing essential tools and resources such as editorial policies, selecting and connecting domain experts, a modern publishing platform, collaborative peer review processes, and transparent management of funds and profits. Underpinning the operating model at ScienceBank are certain fundamentals that all communities abide by, including:

• Remuneration for reviewers and editors is standard

• Acceptance of submissions written in English or other languages

• Publications will be in English and the native language of the submission (where applicable)

• Each community has a ‘Community Wallet,’ which ScienceBank uses to collect payments from APC to pay reviewers and Editors and cover the general costs of publishing. Any remaining funds will remain in the wallet for the community to use. Funds can be used to offer discounts and waivers for authors, support early-stage scientists, or help non-native English speakers deliver the best version of their work.

Traditional Publishers require the publishing process to align with their own operating needs, such as how much to charge for APCs, the acceptance rates of papers, and the support given to authors, reviewers, and Editors. This is a centralized decision process that is not made by the people who generate, review, and edit scientific work. Community-based publishing provides a new operating framework for scientific publishing that empowers scientists who lead communities to make critical decisions on pricing for APCs, paper acceptance rates, and author support in the peer review process. In addition, Communities that publish work and charge APCs will earn a share of revenue for their publications. This ensures that the Communities are empowered to support new research to be commissioned or to subsidize the work of authors who cannot afford to publish their work in high-quality communities.

A community consists of a network of verified domain experts who collaborate to produce and review articles and draft editorials, which are published on an Open-Access model. The community sets its own targets and makes decisions independent of a centralized publisher.