Clear standards for membership.

Four things we check

1. Identity and record: does the applicant correspond to the linked work? A research-use name is acceptable when its relationship to the private verification record can be established.
2. Contribution: can the applicant explain what they personally contributed? Papers, software, projects and other verifiable work can all provide evidence.
3. Research judgment: can they distinguish established findings from hypotheses, explain limitations, and describe evidence that would change their conclusion?
4. Intended use: is the proposed use of the affiliation accurate and within the scope of membership?

A proportionate decision

We check public records ourselves. Missing indexing or low citation counts alone do not establish poor research. Unconventional ideas are assessed by the same standards as conventional work.

AI may help organize evidence and identify inconsistencies. A person decides whether to approve, request a focused clarification, defer for appropriate expertise, or decline. We aim to send an initial response within five working days, before any payment.

When work involves health interventions or human participants, we clarify the actual activities and relevant oversight. A theoretical proposal alone is not treated as a human-subject experiment. We may defer an application when we cannot adequately assess its scope.

Corrections and reconsideration

Applicants may send corrected records or relevant new evidence to info@rifor.org, quoting their application reference. Approval confirms membership eligibility; it does not certify the correctness of a publication.