BCINexus · Working together
Community & reputation
Published work is the start of the conversation, not the end of it. These are the surfaces where it gets found, compared, reproduced, and argued about.
Where things surface
| Surface | What it is for |
|---|---|
| Feed | What was just published, updated, or reproduced across the platform. |
| Studies | The public record of published research, filterable by modality, task, and method. |
| Community | Discussion, questions, and help that is not attached to one study. |
| Researchers | Who works on what. Expertise, institutions, and published output. |
| Reviewers | The people doing review, and their areas. |
| Knowledge graph | How studies, datasets, models, and people connect. |
| Trends | What the field is moving toward, from actual published activity. |
How standing is earned
There is no points economy you can farm. Standing comes from things that are verifiable: what you published, what held up, and what you contributed to other people's work.
- Publishing your first study grants the researcher capability and its profile badge.
- Completed review stages are attributed to you on the studies they helped publish.
- Reproduction attempts you run — including the ones that fail — are attached to your profile.
- Citations and downstream reuse feed the impact history shown on studies and profiles.
- The leaderboard ranks contributors and reviewers on that activity.
Benchmarks and challenges
Prose claims about accuracy are hard to compare because everyone cuts their data differently. Benchmarks fix the task, the data, and the metric so results sit on the same footing.
- Benchmark
- A shared task with a fixed dataset and evaluation protocol. Submitting a result records the model, the split, and the score.
- Leaderboard
- Ranked submissions for a benchmark. Entries link back to the model and the study behind them, so a number is always traceable.
- Challenge
- A time-boxed benchmark with its own entry window.
- Reproduction attempt
- Someone re-running a published result and recording what they got. A negative reproduction is a first-class contribution, not a complaint.
A benchmark entry is not peer review
Scoring well proves your model does well on that task. It does not mean the surrounding study was reviewed — those are separate, and a study page shows both.
Submitting a reproduction
- Start from the published study or model rather than reimplementing from the abstract.
- Record what you changed if you could not match the original environment exactly.
- Report the number you actually got, next to the one that was claimed.
- Attach your own reproducibility stamp so your attempt is itself reproducible.
Discussion and conduct
Public comments on a study are visible to everyone and attributed to you. Review comments are a separate, private channel — see how review works. The community guidelines apply everywhere: criticise the work, be specific, and bring evidence.
Notifications and digests
- In-app notifications cover review activity, comments and replies, authorship invitations, team events, and decisions on your work.
- Email delivery follows your notification preferences per event type — the two are driven by the same setting, so turning something off turns off both.
- A periodic digest summarises activity relevant to you without one message per event.
Related
Something missing or out of date? Email support or request a doc page. Include the page name and what you expected to find.