Research · Published
Research Article Reviewer Scorecard
A reviewer scorecard turns Research acceptance into a consistent decision about evidence, structure, links, and reader usefulness.
On this page
Headline signal
7 scorecard dimensions: intent, evidence, limits, structure, links, controls, action (Google Search Central: SEO starter guide). Treat this as context for planning, not a guarantee about a particular assistant or operating result.
Analysis and operating context
Methodology: the scorecard separates objective production checks from the owner’s decision about whether the article is useful and appropriately scoped.
Check unique intent, traceable claims, visible limitations, required Research sections, source notes, internal links, related cards, metadata, schema, and build output.
Return the article with one concrete reason such as missing definition, duplicate intent, inaccessible source, broken link, or unsupported recommendation.
Keep reviewer status and next action visible in the handoff so a returned article does not re-enter the queue as an apparently new candidate.
Sources
- NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
- NIST Digital Identity Guidelines
- CISA Secure Our World
- FTC Data Security Guidance
- Google Search Central: Creating helpful content
- Google Search Central: SEO starter guide
- OWASP Top 10
- ILO: Decent work and the care economy
- World Bank: Digital economy
- Philippine Statistics Authority
- W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Frequently asked questions
What should a manager verify first?
Verify the work definition, source record, reviewer, access limit, and escalation path before assigning the queue.
What belongs with the internal owner?
Keep final approvals, unusual exceptions, payment decisions, and changes to the control rules with the internal owner.