A proven track record of original thought
Every entry is timestamped and locked the moment you submit it. No one can rewrite when you thought what.
SciRecord
Record your contribution to knowledge about the universe.
Honest. Immutable. Tracked and shared as it actually unfolds: every step, every pivot, every dead end, every breakthrough.
A record that shows how you actually think
Pivots, dead ends, surprises, and breakthroughs all live on your profile in order. The thinking is the credential.
A profile readers can trust
Your identity is verified once. Anyone reading your profile knows what they see can't be faked.
Control over who sees what
Three visibility levels per record: public, link-only (reachable by URL), or private. You decide and can change it.
A way to publish what you conclude
When you reach a conclusion you want to share publicly, you publish a claim. It cites the entries that led to it and the data behind it, gets a citation handle, and carries its review report.
Claims and waypoints, alongside preprints and articles
A SciRecord Waypoint is a weekly note about your work: what you learned, what surprised you, what you got stuck on.
A SciRecord Claim is a small, end-to-end study (with data or without), complete on its own even if narrow, of the kind that doesn't suit the journal-article format.
New to academic publishing? What are peer-reviewed articles and preprints?
A peer-reviewed article is a paper published in a journal after review by peer scientists. A preprint is the same kind of paper, posted publicly before or instead of publication in a journal.
| Traditional | SciRecord | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dimension | Peer-reviewed article | Preprint | SciRecord Claim | SciRecord Waypoint |
| Scope of work and format | Full study expected, in formal academic style. Typically IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) or discipline-specific variants. | Same shape as a journal paper, typically IMRaD format, fitting a category the preprint server supports. | Any size, any topic. No fixed format or category-fit. ⓘIMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) is a 20th-century convention for experimental papers. A bird sighting, a methodological note, a focused replication, and a theoretical synthesis all have different natural shapes. Forcing one format would exclude smaller or non-experimental work — exactly what SciRecord exists to credit. The rubric checks rigor (citations, claim-evidence alignment, structural soundness), not section names. Rigor is the bar; format is not. | A weekly snapshot of the thinking and the work, in five short fields. |
| Timing | Months to years. | Whenever the author posts. | When the thinking is ready. | At most once a week. |
| Who can read it | Open access or paywalled, depending on the journal. | Always free and public. | Public, link-only, or private. Once public, stays public. | Public, link-only, or private. Can change at any time. |
| Trail of negative results, ideas, and branches | Not tracked. | Not tracked (sometimes mentioned in the intro). | Linked from the weekly entries that led here, including dead ends and changes of direction. | Recorded in dedicated fields: surprises, dead ends, pivots. |
| How it’s reviewed | Reviewed by peer scientists chosen by the journal; criteria private. | Volunteer moderators; criteria not published. | Public rubric, run by an open AI tool; full report DOI’d. | No review. Only timestamp and verified-author signals. |
| Raw data and code | Sometimes attached, often paywalled or unclear. | Sometimes attached, often elsewhere without clear pointers. | Linked out to public homes: Zenodo for data, GitHub for code, instrument logs. | Linked from the entry, not held inside it. |
| Citation and revisions | DOI + journal name. The article itself does not change; errors get errata or a full retraction. | DOI at preprint servers. Versioned: v1, v2, v3, … | DOI from Crossref. Each revision is reviewed and DOI’d separately; full history kept. The review report is attached and re-runnable. | Stable URL on SciRecord (no DOI). Locked once posted; corrections become new entries that reference the old. |
Reviewed by named, public tools
Every claim is checked by the tools listed below. Each one is published with its own paper, so anyone can see what is being checked and how.
sciwrite-lint
arXiv:2604.08501Checks the text. Verifies that each citation exists, is not retracted, and actually supports the argument, not just there for decoration.
scicode-lint
arXiv:2603.17893Checks the code attached to a claim. Catches statistical bugs, data-handling errors, and other methodology mistakes that traditional tools miss.
Claim-graph verifier
Internal to SciRecordChecks the connections. Cited weekly entries exist, timestamps line up, and the reasoning trail is intact.
Some tools don't apply to every claim. For example, a math proof has no code for the code checker.
Coming next
Forks
Pick up someone else's project or waypoint and continue it on your own trajectory, with the lineage preserved.
Replies
Reply to someone else's claim. Your reply goes through the same review and stands alongside the original on the record, not buried in a comment thread.
Multi-author projects
A single project receiving waypoints from several verified authors. The project is shared; each waypoint still credits one author and lives on that author's trajectory.
Built on published research
- Visible, Trackable, Forkable: Opening the Process of ScienceSamsonau, S. V. (2026). arXiv:2604.10932.Read on arXiv→Defines a framework for an open, auditable scientific research process.
- The Research Guide: From Informal Role to ProfessionSamsonau, S. V., & Pearce, M. (2026). arXiv:2604.19961.Read on arXiv→Research spans many modes of inquiry, each with its own natural shape.
- sciwrite-lint: Verification Infrastructure for the Age of Science Vibe-WritingSamsonau, S. V. (2026). arXiv:2604.08501.Read on arXiv→The text-side verification engine: citation integrity, claim-evidence alignment.
- scicode-lint: AI-Powered Methodology-Bug Detection in Scientific PythonSamsonau, S. V. (2026). arXiv:2603.17893.Read on arXiv→The code-side verification engine: methodology bugs traditional linters miss.
- From EdTech to HumanDevTechSamsonau, S. V., Vine, O., & Pearce, M. (2026). EdArXiv:nyqsu.Read on EdArXiv→Names the standards for software designed to guide research.
- Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Research: Authentic Research Education FrameworkSamsonau, S. V., et al. (2022). arXiv:2210.08966.Read on arXiv→Demonstrates how undergraduate students can do end-to-end research.
Built for many ecosystems, any scale of contribution
SciRecord is infrastructure for any research community, at any scope of work. A single measurement in a specific scenario is as legitimate as a large theoretical synthesis. What matters is that the claim is falsifiable and the evidence is real. Three ecosystems are already on the platform:
Society of Teen Scientists
for teen scientists doing real research: middle school, high school, and homeschool.
To start using SciRecord, contact us at team@teenscientists.org.
Undergraduate Research
for college students building toward grad school, labs, and industry.
To start using SciRecord, contact us at hello@arpconnect.com.
Citizen Science
for independent researchers, hobbyists, and lifelong investigators.
To start using SciRecord, contact us at hello@arpconnect.com.
Verified
Identity verified at signup with an ID and a face check. Posting a correction to a past entry, or changing its visibility, needs another face check. Not an anonymous handle, not a login borrowed from another platform.
One account, many ecosystems
The same identity, the same trajectory, across every ecosystem you join. Forks, replies, and citations all credit one verified person, even when the work spans communities.
Are you a member of another society? Let's talk.