Board & governance
Who is accountable, and how
Status: founding pilot. The platform, the multi-agent workflow and the public audit trail are live. The standing, multi-disciplinary editorial board named above is being recruited; until it is ratified, critiques are approved under a named founding-editor review, carry the full transparency record, and remain open to author reply and public correction. This status is disclosed on every critique rather than implied.
Editorial roles
| Role | Function |
|---|---|
| Editor-in-chief | Final responsibility for editorial standards, disputes and corrections. |
| Deputy editors | Oversee major social-science domains. |
| Section editors | Approve critiques in specific fields. |
| AI review editor | Oversees the agents, prompts, model cards and audit trails. |
| Research-integrity editor | Handles disputes, corrections and severity challenges. |
| Managing editor | Workflow, production and author notification. |
| Legal counsel | Copyright, defamation and takedowns. |
| Expert certifiers | Optional high-stakes review. |
Governance principles
- § Every public critique requires named human editor approval.
- § AI agents are synthetic reviewers, not independent human experts.
- § Expert certification is optional.
- § Authors have a right of reply but no veto.
- § Funders and institutional subscribers have no editorial control.
- § Substantive corrections are public and versioned.
- § Severe criticism must be claim-linked and source-grounded.
- § The journal critiques papers, not authors as people.