Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Research . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Research . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Reviewer Guide (Egyptian Baseline): R1/R2 Peer Check + AI Traffic-Light Flags (v4.1)

Authors: Grasa, Michael;

Reviewer Guide (Egyptian Baseline): R1/R2 Peer Check + AI Traffic-Light Flags (v4.1)

Abstract

Abstract:An open, falsifiability-first reviewer protocol that turns a single script reading into an auditable “claim record.” Each claim is reviewed by two independent reviewers (R1 and R2) using cited sources, a clearly defined glyph crop, and ORI/OVR orientation + sequence rules; outcomes are logged for direct comparison. The guide also includes an advisory AI Traffic-Light (G/Y/R) flag to help surface likely mismatch without replacing human evidence review. Description:This Reviewer Guide (Egyptian Baseline) explains how to use the Echoes of the Script Falsifiability Sheet to review one bounded claim and record a reproducible, auditable independent check. It clarifies what the method is—and is not: a structured workflow + record format for verification (not a claim of full decipherment). Reviewers are guided to separate direct evidence (cited sources + visible glyph regions) from hypothesis, apply ORI/OVR reading orientation and sequence rules, and log outcomes in a consistent format. The guide standardizes a two-reviewer system: R1 and R2 review the same claim independently, then outcomes are compared and recorded as agreement, disagreement, or unresolved pending additional evidence. It includes practical instructions for peer checking and sharing results, recommended file naming, and a minimum upload kit: (1) the completed sheet, (2) an evidence packet, (3) a short abstract, (4) version/date, and (5) a crop showing the exact glyph region under review. It also introduces an AI Traffic-Light flag (Green/Yellow/Red) as an advisory prompt only. The AI signal is never authoritative and cannot override evidence; final determinations must be recorded through R1/R2 checks using cited sources, visible glyph matching, and orientation/sequence rules. Collaboration note: We are actively seeking Singapore-based Digital Humanities collaborators (libraries, archives, researchers, and reviewers) to test and refine this open verification workflow, with outreach planned around Asia Tech x Singapore (ATxSG) and The AI Summit Singapore (late May). Support note: Michael Grasa operate Echoes of the Script as a nonprofit project via Fractured Atlas. Support helps fund open publishing (Zenodo releases), evidence packet preparation, reviewer onboarding (R1/R2), and continued development of the falsifiability workflow. Funding is used to keep materials publicly available and collaboration-ready. URL https://fundraising.fracturedatlas.org/echoes-of-the-script-public-decoding-pop-ups For questions or pilot contributions, contact: Mlscholar@veil-removed.org

Related Organizations
Keywords

Digital Humanities, Library & Information Science, Research Methods/ Methodology, Open Science, Linguistics (Writing Systems), Archaeology, Ancient History, Egyptology, Artificial Intelligence (Ai) -Human-in-the-Loop/ Evaluation, Epigraphy, Cultural Hertiage, Library & Information Science

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities