Not Just Papers
Papers are containers. OpenProof breaks research into claims, evidence, assumptions, challenges, replications, and review tasks.
OpenProof.science
OpenProof
A public verification layer for scientific claims. Submit papers, proofs, datasets, simulations, and discoveries, then let evidence, transparent review, reproducibility, safety boundaries, and earned reputation do the sorting.
OpenProof editorial artwork
Expert-Weighted
Experts carry more weight, but evidence and reproducibility can let outsiders earn credibility.
Safety-Aware
High-stakes medical, biological, chemical, and engineering claims get explicit boundaries before anyone confuses review with approval.
How it works
OpenProof is not AI peer review.
Papers and claims are reviewed in public by people. AI-assisted work can be disclosed, but OpenProof does not ask an AI to decide whether a paper is true. The platform organizes human review, evidence, cosigns, challenges, replication notes, and safety boundaries into a visible signal.
Post work
Authors post papers or specific claims with PDFs, evidence, datasets, code, assumptions, and AI-use disclosures when relevant.
Review in public
Readers comment, vote, cosign, challenge, add evidence, run verification tasks, and explain what would make the work stronger.
Weight by earned trust
Earned reputation is credibility built on the platform through useful scientific contributions, not a degree, employer, follower count, or automatic AI score.
Show the signal
The score is not a verdict. It is a routing signal that helps the community see which work is supported, disputed, under-reviewed, reproducible, or ready for archival publication.
How ranking is weighted
OpenProof combines activity such as votes, cosigns, structured reviews, comments, views, downloads, and DOI readiness. Reputation affects influence, but it is capped so a single high-status account cannot simply dominate the ranking. Strong evidence can lift unknown authors; repeated low-quality contributions reduce credibility.
Reputation goes up when users
post claims later validated by others, write useful reviews, reproduce results, add strong evidence, find real errors, explain difficult ideas clearly, or make challenges that hold up.
Reputation goes down when users
spam, overclaim, ignore corrections, submit misleading evidence, vote in bad faith, hide serious conflicts, or cosign work that is later shown to be careless or fraudulent.
The Galactic Magnetic Reversal Boundary Hypothesis: Statistical Evidence for a Corridor Aligned with the Galactic Magnetic Field Reversal
We present multi-dataset statistical evidence that the solar system is embedded near a galactic magnetic field reversal boundary — a "corridor" aligned with l=0°/180° in galactic coordinates, connecting the Golden Gate (Sagittarius direction) and Silver Gate (Taurus/Orion direction). Six converging lines of …
0.0
signal
Continuous Field Dynamics and the Dark Matter Effect: A First-Principles Approach
This manuscript presents a first-principles field-based interpretation of the dark matter effect within the framework of the Universal Quantum Foam Hypothesis (UQSH). The underlying idea was first formulated by the author on 8 November 2025 and later published in an exploratory book …
0.0
signal
Elastic vacuum model
This paper explores a speculative cosmological framework called the Elastic Universe Theory (TUE), based on the idea that the vacuum may behave as a dynamically relaxing elastic medium rather than a passive background. Starting from the question of whether a coherent expansion …
0.0
signal
Binary Stellar Companion Hypothesis: Predicted Solar Periodicities Confirmed in Two Independent Datasets
This paper tests the hypothesis that our Sun has a binary stellar companion with an orbital period of approximately 25,772 years — matching Earth's measured precessional cycle. The hypothesis predicts specific harmonic periodicities in solar activity at P/256 = 101.6 years and …
0.0
signal