Question before advocacy
Contributions should address a defined research question, claim, method, dataset, model, or infrastructure need.
06 / OPEN RESEARCH PARTICIPATION
Contribute evidence, criticism, formalization, or engineering.
Participation does not require prior agreement with the framework. Independent criticism, failed replication, competing models, and well-documented negative results are valid research contributions.
8Participation pathways
OpenGlobal and remote
VersionedAttribution and contribution records
01
Conditions of participation
The program is open, but research claims and contributor credit require explicit standards.
Evidence before agreement
Reviewers and contributors are not expected to endorse the framework; contrary evidence is welcome.
Credit by contribution
Authorship, acknowledgment, and institutional credit follow documented work—not title, funding, or affiliation alone.
Revision remains possible
Accepted outputs retain versions, review states, corrections, disputes, and limitations.
02
Participation pathways
01
Participation pathways
Academic Review
Independent evaluation of definitions, literature coverage, evidence quality, methods, inference, limitations, ethics, and falsifiability.
Required capabilities
Relevant doctoral-level research experience, a strong publication or professional record, or demonstrable subject expertise; ability to disclose conflicts and review constructively.
Possible tasks
- 01
Review a manuscript, Framework 1.0 section, research protocol, or volume brief.
- 02
Identify unsupported claims, missing literature, counterexamples, ethical risks, or invalid inference.
- 03
Produce a signed or anonymous review memo with major, minor, and editorial comments.
Attribution
Named reviewer statement or acknowledgment with consent; substantial intellectual revision may qualify for coauthorship only after explicit agreement and accountability for the final work.
Contribution record
Review object, reviewer role, conflict statement, date, reviewed version, recommendation, author response, and disposition.
How to submit
Email a review proposal or completed memo in PDF/DOCX, identify the exact artifact and version, and include expertise, affiliation, preferred disclosure level, and conflicts.
02
Participation pathways
Mathematical Formalization
Turning verbal propositions into explicit variables, equations, causal structures, dynamic systems, proofs, and rival formal models.
Required capabilities
Applied mathematics, statistics, econometrics, control theory, network science, complex systems, or theoretical computer science; clear assumptions and dimensional consistency.
Possible tasks
- 01
Formalize C, Lₑ, Eₙ, E, S, thresholds, feedbacks, and boundary conditions.
- 02
Derive testable implications and identify non-identifiability, degeneracy, or alternative specifications.
- 03
Build sensitivity, stability, equilibrium, causal, or comparative model notes.
Attribution
Credit as formalization contributor or model author; coauthorship requires substantial intellectual contribution, drafting or revision, approval, and accountability.
Contribution record
Model ID, equations, notation, assumptions, derivation, parameter ranges, dependencies, tests, review state, code link, and version history.
How to submit
Submit a concise model note with definitions, assumptions, derivation, testable predictions, failure conditions, references, and any executable code.
03
Participation pathways
Data and Indicators
Building auditable datasets, construct definitions, measurement protocols, indicators, benchmarks, and uncertainty records.
Required capabilities
Data science, statistics, survey research, archival methods, measurement theory, causal inference, or domain data stewardship; provenance and licensing competence.
Possible tasks
- 01
Map observable indicators to research constructs and document validity limits.
- 02
Curate, clean, normalize, and version public or permissioned datasets.
- 03
Design missing-data, weighting, uncertainty, bias, comparability, and benchmark protocols.
Attribution
Dataset authorship, data-curation credit, or acknowledgment according to the artifact and documented role; subsequent papers determine authorship separately.
Contribution record
Dataset or indicator ID, sources, schema, collection and transformation history, license, uncertainty, validation, review status, checksum, and release version.
How to submit
Send a data note, dictionary/schema, provenance table, license or permission status, sample records, validation plan, and repository link where available.
04
Participation pathways
Multi-Agent Modeling
Testing how micro-level agents, networks, incentives, information, trust, resources, and governance generate macro-level dynamics.
Required capabilities
Agent-based modeling, complex adaptive systems, game theory, mechanism design, network analysis, simulation engineering, or reproducible computational research.
Possible tasks
- 01
Implement baseline and rival multi-agent models for cooperation, trust, entropy, coordination, collapse, or recovery.
- 02
Run calibration, sensitivity, ablation, stress, adversarial, and historical-pattern tests.
- 03
Publish reproducible scenarios, parameter files, random seeds, outputs, and known failure modes.
Attribution
Model and software credit based on design, implementation, analysis, and documentation; paper authorship is decided per output and requires accountability.
Contribution record
Model ID, architecture, assumptions, code version, environment, parameters, seeds, datasets, experiments, outputs, failed runs, review, and license.
How to submit
Submit a repository or archive with README, model specification, environment file, parameter set, reproducible run, results summary, limitations, and desired review.
05
Participation pathways
Historical Case Research
Using primary and secondary sources to test, refine, bound, or reject civilizational claims across time and place.
Required capabilities
History, archaeology, area studies, political economy, sociology, anthropology, demography, or related domain expertise; source criticism and contextual analysis.
Possible tasks
- 01
Prepare a bounded case study with timeline, unit of analysis, source map, and competing explanations.
- 02
Test stability, trust, cooperation, energy, entropy, continuity, or collapse hypotheses against historical evidence.
- 03
Identify selection bias, anachronism, missing cases, regional variation, and disconfirming evidence.
Attribution
Case-study author, coauthor, reviewer, or source contributor according to intellectual responsibility and published output.
Contribution record
Case ID, scope, chronology, source inventory, evidence extracts, claims tested, alternative explanations, uncertainty, review, corrections, and version.
How to submit
Send a case abstract, research question, scope and dates, source inventory, method, competing explanations, expected output, and conflict or access constraints.
06
Participation pathways
Software and Knowledge-Graph Development
Building the open technical infrastructure needed for provenance, versioning, graph relations, reproducibility, review, and machine-readable research records.
Required capabilities
Web or backend engineering, databases, knowledge graphs, semantic web, APIs, research software, information security, privacy engineering, UX, or open-source maintenance.
Possible tasks
- 01
Prototype GEO objects and Source–Evidence–Claim–Model–Review relations.
- 02
Develop schemas, validation, ingestion, query, export, identity, access, dispute, and version workflows.
- 03
Review security, privacy, licensing, accessibility, interoperability, and deployment architecture.
Attribution
Code contributor, maintainer, technical designer, security reviewer, or software author credit based on accepted commits and documented responsibility.
Contribution record
Issue and submission ID, specification, repository, commits, tests, review, security notes, license, release, dependencies, and maintenance status.
How to submit
Email a technical proposal, architecture note, issue or repository link, relevant experience, license preference, security/privacy considerations, and a bounded first deliverable.
07
Participation pathways
Translation and Regional Coordination
Making concepts accessible across languages while preserving terminology, context, uncertainty, and regional scholarly perspectives.
Required capabilities
High-level English plus target-language proficiency; academic or technical translation, terminology management, regional research networks, and cultural-context competence.
Possible tasks
- 01
Translate or review pages, abstracts, protocols, glossaries, calls, and research summaries.
- 02
Maintain terminology, translation memory, locale conventions, RTL/accessibility quality, and version alignment.
- 03
Coordinate regional literature, scholars, cases, seminars, and feedback without claiming to represent an entire region.
Attribution
Translator, translation reviewer, terminology editor, or regional coordinator credit by artifact and version; translation alone does not imply authorship of the underlying theory.
Contribution record
Language pair, artifact and source version, translator/reviewer roles, terminology decisions, unresolved terms, date, corrections, consent, and release.
How to submit
Send language pair, relevant experience, a short sample or prior work, preferred artifact, regional focus, availability, disclosure preference, and any terminology concerns.
08
Participation pathways
Institutional Cooperation
Structured collaboration with universities, laboratories, archives, publishers, foundations, research networks, public-interest organizations, and responsible technology institutions.
Required capabilities
A defined institutional mandate, responsible contact, relevant expertise or infrastructure, governance capacity, and willingness to agree on scope, data rights, review, ethics, credit, and publication.
Possible tasks
- 01
Co-develop a research protocol, dataset, model, workshop, case program, replication study, or open infrastructure prototype.
- 02
Provide archives, data access, computing, review, hosting, translation, ethics, or regional coordination under written terms.
- 03
Establish a bounded pilot with deliverables, milestones, responsibilities, risk controls, and public reporting.
Attribution
The institution is credited as partner on agreed outputs; individual contributors are credited by actual role. Funding or affiliation alone does not create authorship.
Contribution record
Agreement ID, scope, parties, individual roles, resources, ethics and data terms, milestones, outputs, review, disclosures, changes, and closeout.
How to submit
Send a letter of interest naming the institution and responsible contact, proposed question or pilot, capabilities, requested role, resources, constraints, timeline, and decision process.
03
How attribution is decided
Credit is agreed before publication and revised when responsibilities change.
Authorship
Reserved for substantial intellectual contribution, participation in drafting or critical revision, approval of the final output, and accountability for the work.
Contributorship
Specific roles—review, formalization, data curation, software, validation, translation, coordination, and others—are recorded even when they do not meet authorship requirements.
Acknowledgment
Limited advice, access, logistical assistance, or other support is acknowledged with permission; it is not converted into authorship.
Negative results
Failed replication, counterevidence, and critical review may receive the same visible contribution treatment as supportive findings.
Consent and privacy
Public naming, affiliation, profile links, review disclosure, and contribution details require contributor consent and may be limited for safety or confidentiality.
04
How contributions are recorded
The initial register is a versioned research record. Future GEO or CPC-compatible credentials may be added only after governance, consent, and verification procedures are operational.
Contributor identity
Name, ORCID or profile if supplied, affiliation, and disclosure preference
Research object
Task, question, artifact, dataset, model, review, translation, or software component
Role and scope
What was proposed, produced, checked, changed, or rejected
Evidence of work
Files, repository, commits, review memo, data record, correspondence, or decision log
State and review
Submitted, under review, accepted, revised, declined, disputed, withdrawn, or superseded
Version and citation
Dates, versions, dependencies, license, preferred citation, corrections, and successor record
05
Submission and review process
Start with a bounded contribution. A small auditable artifact is more useful than an expansive proposal with no testable output.
- 01
Select a pathway
Choose the route that best matches the intended artifact and use its email subject.
- 02
Prepare the package
Include scope, method, evidence or code, provenance, license, limitations, disclosure, and requested outcome.
- 03
Initial triage
The program checks relevance, completeness, safety, rights, conflicts, and the appropriate reviewer.
- 04
Independent review
Methods, claims, artifacts, and ethical or technical risks are reviewed; revisions may be requested.
- 05
Decision and response
Accepted, revision, declined, disputed, or deferred decisions retain reasons; submission does not guarantee publication.
- 06
Credit agreement
Authorship, contributor role, public naming, license, and contribution record are confirmed before release.
- 07
Versioned release
Accepted work is linked to the relevant page, volume, model, dataset, GEO object, correction, or research update.
06
Minimum submission checklist
- Contributor name and preferred public identity
- Selected pathway and exact email subject
- Question, artifact, or version being addressed
- Contribution summary and bounded deliverable
- Methods, sources, data, model, code, or review memo
- Provenance, licenses, permissions, and privacy constraints
- Limitations, uncertainty, competing explanations, and conflicts of interest
- Preferred attribution, disclosure level, and availability for revision