pith. sign in

peer review

Submit a paper for Pith Peer Review. We run the current Pith referee process and return a completed review ticket with a referee's decision, required revisions, claim ledger, verification grade, and relevant Recognition citations.

Reviews are private by default. After the review is complete, the owner can choose to make the report public from the ticket page. Journal consideration is optional and happens after peer review.

  1. Peer review first. This page creates the review ticket. It does not directly submit the paper for publication.
  2. Private by default. The report is visible only to the requester while it is queued, running, and after completion unless the owner explicitly shares it.
  3. Journal submission later. Once the ticket is complete, the owner can choose whether to make it public and enter journal eligibility scoring.

Journal results live at /journal. The rubric and hard floors are public at /journal/policy.

sign in to request peer review

Reports are saved to your profile and emailed to you when they finish. Standard accounts are capped at 5 per day and 50 per month; editor and admin accounts have unlimited reviews.

recent public peer reviews

Only completed reviews that owners explicitly shared are listed here.

what the journal rubric reads

  1. Referee's decision - publication recommendation and rationale.
  2. Required revisions - stable R1, R2, ... actions the authors can answer one by one.
  3. Claim ledger - every load-bearing claim with type, evidence, status, and reviewer note.
  4. Verification grade - V0 through V5, from prose-only to independent formal audit.
  5. Technical assessment - theorem statements, assumptions, proof strategy, counterexamples, notation, and literature positioning.
  6. Recognition Science audit - exact Lean theorem comparisons and epistemic tags where the paper overlaps Recognition.
  7. Cited Recognition theorems - Lean theorems that bear on the review, each linked to its module page.
  8. Final recommendation - accept / metadata fixes / minor / major / formalization required / empirical evidence required / reject / out of scope / uncertain.

Recognition does not address every paper. When the paper is outside its scope we say so explicitly with canon_match_strength="none" and review on field-standard merits. The Recognition library is one tool, not a theory of everything.