Scientific Review

The Open Science Repository is committed to improving the overall quality, usefulness and intellectual accessibility of the global research output.

Papers must pass the following validation process to be published by the Open Science Repository. The criteria framework is based on the philosophy of science of Karl Popper.

Popperian intellectual scheme

Main Problem (P) → Theories (TT) → Tests (EE) → New Problems (P)

This scheme is usually depicted in Popper's philosophy of science as PP>>TT>>EE>>PP, where EE stands for the discovery of theoretical errors, which is the main goal of the tests of hypotheses.

Theories and hypotheses of solutions for the main problem are synonymous here.

Evaluation of the main problem to be solved or explained

Any research or scientific discussion is about a problem and its problematic situation. The review process of the Open Science Repository evaluates if the main problem addressed by the paper is clearly described.

Discussion of the main problem, relevant problems and difficulties connected to it, and, ideally, of previous attempted or accepted solutions forms a view of the problematic situation within which the research work exists.

Evaluation of the main hypothesis under test

Any research is about some hypothesis under test or under discussion. The hypothesis is a tentative solution or contribution to the main problem.

The review process evaluates if hypotheses are described clearly and if they are relevant and actually add to the debate on the problem.

Bold hypotheses and new insights on the problem are welcome.

Evaluation of particular conditions with which hypotheses combine

Research combines hypothesis with particular conditions (which include methods, statistical samples, instruments, etc.), testing the combination for the achievement of the desired solution. This is valid even for data-driven research. For instance, particular conditions could be a given population subset to which a drug would be administered in order to test for its efficacy, along with all the methodology used to administer the drug and measure its effect.

Biases originated from particular conditions are common in scientific research and can eventually lead to scientific misinformation. Statistical samples are subject to bias if not carefully planned or if results are wrongly extrapolated for a larger population. Tools, like instruments and machines used in any stage of the research, are subject to misleading differences that may impact results. Data used to test hypotheses may present important qualitative or quantitative limitations.

Evaluation of the particular conditions of the research work is a main part of the review process in science.

Discussion of results and conclusion

Results should assess whether the desired solution for the main problem was achieved from the combination of the hypothesis under test with the particular conditions of the work. The conclusion can be preceded by presentation of relevant data collected during the research and discussion of arguments that support it. There is no need for extensive presentation of irrelevant data.

The review process evaluates the soundness of arguments. A better understanding of the main problem and its surrounding difficulties should arise from the discussion, including proposals of new research approaches.

Papers with conclusions suggesting that the final truth about something has been reached will not be accepted. In this case, editors may require compliance with Socratic intellectual modesty and ask for reconsideration.


The review process evaluates:

  • clear discussion of the main problem and its connections
  • discussion of hypotheses under test
  • critical discussion of relevant particular conditions (methods, statistical samples, database limitations, etc.)
  • discussion of results and emerging problems.

Open review

Science is not free from error. Replacement of previous theories by new, better ones is a main principle of science emphasized by Popper. The scientific review is not an one-time effort, it should be an ongoing process.

The Open Science Repository endorses and uses open review: authors can publish their papers, however, all papers remain open for others to post comments and opinions about them. We moderate the reviews and, only if they are approved, publish them on the site.

Must-read reference

Popper, Karl R. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press, London.