PubSci:ContentPolicy

PubSci accepts nearly everything. This page describes the narrow set of content that is not accepted, what happens to content that is flagged, and how to appeal.

The following content is removed without exception:

• Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) under 18 U.S.C. § 2256. PubSci is required by US law to report apparent violations to the NCMEC CyberTipline before taking any other action. Report first; removal follows.
• Clear and imminent incitement to violence meeting the Brandenburg standard (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969): speech directed at producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce it.
• Content subject to a valid court order requiring removal.

Legal-floor removals are not appealable. The paper is deleted and the PSI ID is tombstoned with a "removed for legal reasons" notice. The DOI resolves to the tombstone. The ID is not recycled.

Above the legal floor, PubSci maintains a narrow set of additional prohibitions:

• Meaningless slop. Content with no genuine communicative purpose: random or automated text with no human contribution, placeholder submissions, content that cannot be read as an attempt to communicate anything. Poor-quality science, fringe claims, and wrong conclusions are not slop. The diagnostic question is: can a reader identify any coherent communicative purpose?

• Overtly dehumanizing hate speech. Content whose primary purpose is to dehumanize persons based on protected characteristics, where that expression is the substance of the submission rather than its subject. Academic analysis of hate speech, historical documentation, and critical examination of extremist content are not in this category. The diagnostic question is: is this expressing hate, or examining it?

• Pornography without academic purpose. Graphic adult sexual content where explicit depiction is the primary substance and no identifiable academic inquiry is being served.

Platform-floor removals may be appealed. Email content@pubsci.io. The paper remains removed during review; it can be restored if the appeal succeeds.

The following are explicitly not grounds for removal under either floor:

• Scientific incorrectness or poor methodology
• Community disagreement with findings or conclusions
• Duplicate publication or simultaneous posting elsewhere
• Lack of novelty or originality
• Offensive, controversial, or uncomfortable content that does not meet the floors above
• Fabrication or plagiarism (these trigger a scarlet letter, not removal)
• Retracted findings or work previously published elsewhere and retracted

For content that is severely problematic but does not reach either removal floor -- confirmed fabrication, confirmed plagiarism, targeted harassment campaigns -- admins may apply a permanent public flag. This inserts a prominent banner at the top of the paper page stating the reason. The paper remains fully accessible. The flag is itself part of the permanent record.

The scarlet letter requires an admin decision. Community votes and review text expressing concern do not automatically trigger it.

The same mechanism applies to reviews. A review that constitutes targeted harassment rather than genuine critique of the work may receive a scarlet-letter flag, or in severe cases may be deleted by an admin.

Scenario	Treatment
NCMEC-adjacent material	Report to NCMEC before any other action. Mark owns this call; flag immediately.
Doxxing (private identifying information about real persons)	Scarlet letter. Not removal, unless the material also meets the legal floor.
Harassment campaign against an author via coordinated reviews	Admin investigates; may flag reviews as bad-faith. Paper stays.
Deepfake research submitted as genuine data	Scarlet letter (confirmed fabrication). Submitted as an explicit study of deepfakes: permitted.
Classified or export-controlled information	If genuine: legal-floor evaluation; flag to Mark immediately.
Missing ethics disclosures (e.g. no IRB approval noted)	Not a removal trigger. Reviewers surface it; a scarlet letter may follow if fabrication is confirmed.
Papers about real individuals	Permitted. Doxxing within them may trigger the scarlet letter.
Impersonation in the paper body	Not a platform-floor violation on its own. Reviewer community response expected.

To flag a paper or review for admin review, email content@pubsci.io with the paper URL and the reason. Flags are reviewed by Mark Elliott, MD. PubSci does not have a community flagging queue in v1.

To submit a copyright takedown notice, email dmca@pubsci.io. Include: identification of the copyrighted work; the infringing URL; your contact information; a good-faith statement; an accuracy statement under penalty of perjury; and your signature. Counter-notices may be submitted to the same address.

PubSci's designated agent is registered with the US Copyright Office.

Content policy questions: content@pubsci.io