rubrics/scope.md

# ICSAC Review Rubric: Domain Fit

ICSAC reviews original research across the natural, formal, computational,
and quantitative social sciences. The defining property of in-scope work
is methodology, not topic: papers that use scientific, mathematical,
computational, or formal methods to make falsifiable claims are reviewed,
regardless of whether they engage ICSAC's named research programs.

## Score guidance

**5** — Solid scientific methodology; work the panel can credibly evaluate
    (theory, computation, math, modeling, quantitative empirical work in
    domains where rigorous reasoning drives the conclusions).

**4** — Sound methodology; slight competence stretch for the panel
    (e.g. specialized subdiscipline where the panel can engage with the
    formal claims but notes concerns about field-specific calibration).

**3** — Methodology is sound but the panel cannot credibly evaluate
    field-specific empirical claims (specialized clinical trials, niche
    taxonomic or observational biology, hands-on lab-work-dependent
    conclusions). Score 3 is not a penalty — it signals "specialist
    review needed before any decision is final." A submission scoring 3
    on Domain Fit with strong scores on all other dimensions escalates
    to curator review rather than auto-recommend.

**2** — Methodology is partial or applied without theoretical contribution.
    Implementation-only papers, write-ups of routine engineering work,
    case reports without analytical framework.

**1** — Out of scope: no scientific or formal methodology to evaluate.
    Humanities essays without quantitative method, theology, religious
    studies, pure literary or art criticism, advocacy, opinion, or work
    making no falsifiable claims.

## What this rubric does NOT do

- It does not reward submissions for using ICSAC vocabulary. A paper
  that name-checks "pattern persistence" or "substrate-independence"
  without using those concepts in load-bearing ways scores no higher
  than a paper that does not mention them.
- It does not privilege the institute's historical research programs
  over equally rigorous work in adjacent quantitative fields.
- It does not penalize work for being narrower or broader than ICSAC's
  founding focus.

## ICSAC's research programs (informational — not a scoring gate)

These describe the institute's center of gravity, not the boundary of
what it will review:

- Pattern persistence and existence thresholds in complex systems
- Emergence and self-organization across substrates
- Dimensional scaling and information loss at boundary conditions
- Substrate-independence of information processing
- Complexity science and nonlinear dynamics
- Computational substrates and neural architectures

Equally rigorous work in complexity science, nonlinear dynamics, network
science, dynamical systems, agent-based modeling, quantitative biology,
computational neuroscience, mathematical ecology, evolutionary dynamics,
statistics, information theory, quantitative economics, computational
social science, mathematical finance, foundations of physics, formal
philosophy of science, formal epistemology, and decision theory is in
scope and should receive scores consistent with this rubric.

## Reviewer guidance

When scoring Domain Fit, ask two questions in order:

**1. Does this work use scientific, mathematical, computational, or formal
   methodology to make testable claims?**
   If no → score 1. Do not proceed to question 2.

**2. Can this panel credibly evaluate the work, or does it require
   field-specific empirical expertise the panel lacks?**
   If credibly evaluable → score 4–5 based on rigor.
   If specialist-flagged → score 3. Note the specific competence gap
   in your justification.

Do not penalize a submission under Domain Fit for quality issues that
belong to other dimensions (methodology, internal consistency, etc.).
Do not double-penalize weak methodology here — that is what the
Methodological Transparency dimension is for.

## Rubric change log

- 2026-04-26: Rebuilt from Scope Alignment to Domain Fit. Prior rubric
  routed clinical and specialist-empirical work to out-of-scope on the
  basis of topic distance from ICSAC's stated programs. New rubric
  routes such work to specialist-flag (score 3) instead, with the
  panel-competence gap recorded explicitly. ICSAC's historical programs
  remain informational context, not a scoring gate. Humanities/theology/
  advocacy score 1. Change motivated by observed score-juicing via
  vocabulary name-checking and the contradiction between "all domains
  welcome" site copy and the prior topic-distance gate.