Press
Describing the Institute accurately
The Institute's function is easy to overstate. This page sets out what it does, what it does not do, and the language that describes it correctly.
- External adversarial scientific review
- A certifier, regulator, or accreditor
- Method, not partner findings
- James Scott Institute for Adversarial Frontier Physics
Guidance
Accurate and inaccurate descriptions
- "An independent institute conducting external adversarial review of frontier physics claims."
- "It examines what evidence supports a claim, what contradicts it, and what would settle the difference."
- "Its output is a written record with a stated decision state."
- "Certifies", "validates", "approves", or "accredits" research.
- "Debunks" or "exposes" researchers. Review is adversarial toward claims, not people.
- "Confirmed a discovery". The Institute does not claim discoveries and does not confirm them.
Policy
What the Institute will comment on
- Review methodology, classes of error in frontier research, evidentiary notation, and its own published material.
- Partner identities, partner findings, or any engagement in progress, without written consent.
- Comment on the credibility of a named researcher or group, or provide a quotation supporting a predetermined narrative.
- Errors in Institute public material are corrected on the record with the reason stated.
Request a press briefing
For journalists and editors. Briefings cover method and general classes of scientific error. Include your publication and deadline. Do not send confidential or embargoed material through this form.
Request a scientific briefing
For research groups, funders, and programme leads who want to understand the review method before applying. Describe the shape of the question, not its confidential content.