Governance
QIST Peer-Review Protocol (v0.1)
This protocol defines how QIST artifacts are vetted, who can approve or reject publication, and how status labels are assigned to prevent mixing drafts with reviewed or superseded releases.
QIST Foundation publishes pre-standards, reference architectures, and scientific artifacts; it does not claim regulatory authority nor issue binding standards.
1. Scope
Applies to:
- Technical Notes
- Whitepapers
- Pre-standards / specifications
- Reference architectures and ontology artifacts
2. Artifact status labels
Every published artifact MUST include a visible status label:
- Unreviewed — published for early feedback; not approved under this protocol.
- Reviewed — approved under this protocol with a recorded decision.
- Superseded — retained for archival reference but replaced by a newer release.
- Retracted — withdrawn due to material error, safety, legal, or integrity concerns.
3. Interpretive Publications (Commentary Track)
Non-authoritative
Commentary is not peer-reviewed science and must not be represented as reviewed technical authority.
Mandatory label
Contributor commentary MUST be labeled: Contributor Commentary — Non-normative / Non-authoritative.
Permitted sources
Commentary MUST reference only published artifacts. Sources may be:
- Reviewed
- Unreviewed (with status visible)
Editorial check
Commentary is subject to an editorial check for clarity, attribution, COI disclosure, and compliance with scope boundaries including:
- No new technical claims
- No implied access to draft materials
- No endorsement or certification language
Retraction path
Commentary may be corrected, reclassified, or marked Retracted using the same public status controls applied to artifacts.
4. Review criteria
Reviewers evaluate artifacts against the following criteria:
- Technical correctness and clarity
- Threat model and security claims (when applicable)
- Reproducibility and testability of claims
- Prior art awareness and accurate attribution
- Interoperability considerations and scope boundaries
- Risk analysis for misuse or unsafe deployment
- Disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding context
5. Workflow
- Submission — author submits artifact with metadata (title, abstract, author list, date, and intended status).
- Editorial screening — checks for completeness, scope, and conflicts disclosures.
- Reviewer assignment — reviewers are appointed for domain coverage and independence.
- Review & revisions — iterative review cycles until a decision threshold is met.
- Decision & publication — status label is applied and the decision record is linked.
6. Decision authority, veto, and revocation
Approval
A Reviewed designation requires a recorded approval decision under this protocol.
Rejection
The Research Oversight Board may reject publication if criteria are not met, if conflicts cannot be resolved, or if risk assessment indicates unacceptable exposure.
Veto
The Governing Board retains institutional veto authority to block publication or require reclassification where legal, safety, or governance constraints apply.
Revocation / retraction
An artifact may be marked Retractedwhen there is a material error, integrity breach, credible safety concern, or legal requirement. Retraction must preserve an immutable public record of the prior version and the reason.
7. Transparency portal
The authoritative governance hub is the Transparency Portal: