A new way to assess scientific publishing
A new rating system designed to assess the reliability and relevance of scientific journals is being developed by Ad Fontes Science, a division of Ad Fontes Media. The initiative is intended to help organisations and researchers judge the quality of scientific information, with possible uses ranging from library purchasing decisions to the selection of material for artificial-intelligence systems.
The Scientific Information Reliability Chart, known as SIRC, is due to be introduced on 4 November at the 2026 Charleston Premiers sessions at the Charleston Conference. It adapts the visual model used by Ad Fontes Media for its Media Bias Chart, but applies the approach to scientific literature rather than news reporting.
Under the proposed framework, publications would be positioned according to two separate measures. One would consider how dependable the scientific claims are, while the other would examine how effectively the findings are interpreted for the communities that use them. The distinction is intended to recognise that a paper may contain technically sound research but still communicate its conclusions poorly, or may be relevant to a specialist audience without meeting the same standard of scientific reliability.
What the assessment would examine
Ad Fontes Science says reliability would be judged across seven areas. These include the design and quality of a study, the disclosure of financial and ethical information, and the clarity with which scientific claims are presented. The organisation says the assessments would not be based on a single paper or an isolated editorial decision.
Instead, professional analysts would examine dozens of papers and apply consistent criteria before combining the individual article assessments into a rating for the publication. The method is intended to capture both the strengths and the variation within a journal’s output, rather than treating a title as having a uniform standard in every article.
Relevance would be considered separately through five dimensions. These cover the expertise of authors, the originality of the contribution, any promotional emphasis, accountability to the relevant community and the way claims are moderated through peer scrutiny. The approach therefore places attention not only on whether research has been conducted rigorously, but also on how it is presented, challenged and used.
Potential users across science and publishing
The developers identify libraries and consortia as one possible audience. Ratings could help those organisations assess the quality and variation of journals across their collections when making decisions about which publications to retain or acquire. Publishers could also use the information to review editorial strategies, while researchers might consult it when deciding where to submit their work.
- Libraries and consortia: comparing journal quality and variation within collections.
- Researchers: considering publication venues alongside existing professional advice.
- Publishers: reviewing editorial priorities and performance.
- AI developers and aggregators: assessing material for licensing and training datasets.
- Journalists and practitioners: evaluating the scientific sources used in their work.
The proposed applications also extend to companies that aggregate scientific content and to AI developers assessing material for licensing or training datasets. Journalists and practitioners are identified as further potential users when checking the sources behind technical claims.
A framework still being developed
The project is led by managing directors Kent Anderson and Joy Moore, with Ad Fontes Media founder and chief executive Vanessa Otero also involved. Anderson has worked with the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, JBJS and Pediatrics, while Moore has held positions at Nature Publishing Group, Blackwell and Silverchair.
| Feature | Proposed approach |
|---|---|
| Reliability | Seven assessment dimensions |
| Relevance | Five assessment dimensions |
| Evidence base | Reviews of dozens of papers per publication |
| Output | A visual chart positioning journals on two axes |
The system remains an initiative under development, and the source material describes possible applications rather than established adoption by libraries, publishers or technology companies. Its significance will therefore depend on how the criteria are applied, how the ratings are updated and how users interpret the difference between the quality of a journal and the quality of an individual paper.
By separating the dependability of scientific claims from the way those claims are interpreted, SIRC aims to provide a more detailed picture than a single reputation-based label. The planned launch places the proposal within a wider debate over how scientific evidence should be assessed and communicated as researchers, institutions and technology companies handle growing volumes of published material.
