Policy
Responsible research
Adversarial review touches work that can be consequential in ways beyond its scientific content. This policy states what the Institute excludes, how sensitive material is kept out of public channels, and when an engagement is refused.
- Non-sensitive information only
- Not accepted anywhere on this website
- Assessed case by case; may be declined
- Stated, with the reason given
Exclusions
Material never accepted through this website
No form on this website should be used to transmit any of the following, and the forms are built so that they cannot receive files at all:
- Classified or otherwise government-restricted material.
- Export-controlled technical data.
- Embargoed results, whether the applicant's own or a third party's.
- Trade secrets or commercially confidential technical detail.
- Personal data about identifiable individuals, including research subjects.
- Raw measurement records, instrument logs, or source code of any kind.
Applications describe the shape of the work — the class of claim, the decision at stake, the general nature of the evidence — at a level the applicant would be comfortable stating publicly. Anything beyond that is handled only under separate written arrangements after eligibility review.
Position
Dual-use and consequential research
- Requests involving work with plausible harmful application are assessed before acceptance, not after. Assessment considers the review itself, not only the underlying research.
- The Institute will not conduct a review whose output would function as design guidance for a harmful application, even where the scientific question is legitimate.
- Where a review can be scoped to the evidentiary question without producing such guidance, it may proceed with that scope fixed in writing.
- Where it cannot, the request is declined and the reason is stated to the applicant.
Refusal
When an engagement is declined
- Where the requested output is an endorsement, a certification, or support for a predetermined conclusion.
- Where findings would be conditional on the partner's preferred result, or where the partner reserves the right to suppress an unfavourable record.
- Where reviewers with a material interest in the outcome cannot be excluded.
- Where no evidence can be made available, leaving nothing for review to examine.
- Where the work falls under the dual-use constraint above and cannot be scoped acceptably.
- Where the request is a dispute about priority, credit, or personal conduct rather than about evidence.
Obligations
What the Institute accepts in return
The Institute holds itself to the same standard it applies. It states the evidentiary state of its own claims, discloses when material is synthetic, corrects its own errors publicly, retains dissent in its records, and does not describe its review as a guarantee of correctness. Where the Institute is wrong, the correction is published on the record with the reason and the date.