Core Requirements
Evidence Required
Every claim must be supported by documentation, data, or a reproducible methodology. Assertions without receipts don't make it through.
Confidence Score
Self-assess your work from 0.70–1.00. We verify through peer review. Overconfidence will be flagged; underconfidence is fine.
Evidence Tier
Classify your evidence honestly: primary sources, statistical validation, reproducible, theoretical, or speculative. We publish all tiers.
Format
PDF or Markdown accepted. Include abstract, methodology, references, and conclusion. No minimum page length, no maximum.
Licensing
Default is CC BY 4.0 — attribution required, free to share and adapt. You may specify a different license at submission.
Consensus-Challenging Welcome
We actively publish work that challenges established narratives — provided it's backed by solid evidence and documented methodology.
Evidence Tiers Explained
Choose the tier that honestly reflects the nature of your evidence. Higher tiers get higher default confidence scores but every tier is publishable.
| Tier | Definition | Typical Confidence Range | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Sources | Direct physical evidence, original documents, firsthand inscriptions, raw datasets | 0.90 – 1.00 | Inscription corpus analysis, original excavation data, direct material analysis |
| Statistical Validation | Computational analysis, frequency studies, pattern recognition with statistical rigor | 0.80 – 0.95 | Zipf's Law analysis, Shannon entropy, cross-corpus frequency studies |
| Reproducible | Methodology is fully documented and independently verifiable by others | 0.85 – 0.98 | Cryptographic implementations with test suites, algorithms with public codebases |
| Theoretical | Reasoned arguments, logical frameworks, interpretive models without direct empirical verification | 0.70 – 0.88 | Proposed decipherment frameworks, historical interpretations, model proposals |
| Speculative | Informed speculation, hypothesis generation, frontier ideas not yet testable | 0.70 – 0.80 | Long-range linguistic connections, consciousness hypotheses, pre-history models |
Consensus Status
Consensus-Aligned
Your findings are consistent with the current scholarly consensus. Validation is straightforward. No special documentation required beyond standard evidence requirements.
Consensus-Challenging
Your findings disagree with established interpretations. Welcome — but you'll need stronger documentation of your methodology and a direct engagement with the dominant view you're challenging.
Revolutionary
Your findings overturn major established frameworks. Highest evidence bar. Must include direct refutation of the framework being overturned, not just alternative proposals.
Paper Format Requirements
Required Sections
- Abstract — 100–500 words. Summarize claims, methodology, and findings. This is your public face.
- Methodology — How you gathered and analyzed evidence. Reproducible methods must include enough detail to replicate.
- Evidence Presentation — The data, sources, inscriptions, datasets, code, or documentation that supports your claims.
- Conclusions — What your evidence actually supports. Distinguish confirmed findings from inferences.
- References — Primary sources cited, prior scholarship engaged, datasets referenced.
Optional But Recommended
- Supplementary Files — Raw data, images, code repositories, datasets. Upload with submission.
- Reproducibility Notes — Step-by-step instructions for independent verification.
- Debate Notes — Acknowledge the strongest counterarguments and why your evidence still holds.
File Limits
- Main paper: 100MB max (PDF or Markdown)
- Supporting evidence: multiple files, same 100MB total limit
- Accepted evidence file types: PDF, PNG, JPG, CSV, ZIP, MD
Confidence Score Guidance
0.70 is the floor — below that, the evidence base isn't sufficient for publication. 1.00 means you have direct, reproducible, multiply-verified proof. Most good papers land between 0.82 and 0.95. Be honest. Peer reviewers will push back on overconfident scoring.
Peer Review
Peer review is optional on this platform. You can publish without it. If you request peer review, community reviewers may:
- Verify your methodology
- Test reproducibility claims
- Suggest confidence score adjustments
- Flag unsupported claims without blocking publication
Peer review adds a verification badge to your paper and typically increases community trust in your findings. It does not give reviewers veto power — this isn't about gatekeeping, it's about verification.
Ready to Submit?
Evidence in hand? Methodology documented? Let's get it published.
Submit Your Research →