Nanoworld Lab

Editorial policy

Catalogue methodology

English content is currently in draft and pending author review.

This site is neither a blog nor a PR vehicle. Its purpose is to act as a credible witness to 20+ years of laboratory work and to help external scientists quickly distinguish material that is ready for independent verification from earlier hypotheses and speculation. The rules below govern the catalogue editor (Pavel Pivovarov, project coordinator).

Evidence levels

Every item in the catalogue is tagged with one of four levels:

LEVEL A — Experimental data

Backed by experimental data published in a peer-reviewed journal, or operational on a live product (for example, PicoFold validation on 113 proteins, Q3 = 0.377). Reproducible by a third party with a documented procedure.

LEVEL B — Theory with testable predictions

Theory with testable predictions, or a computational / mathematical approach with a precise formulation. Not yet experimentally validated, but the predictions are concrete and falsifiable.

LEVEL C — Hypothesis that motivated experiment

Hypothesis — a working idea that motivated subsequent A- or B-level work. Not validated on its own, but intellectually productive. Always accompanied by a link to a specific validated work via the hypothesisChain field.

LEVEL D — Speculation

Speculation with no clear path to verification. Preserved in the archive for completeness of historical context, but never surfaced on the directions overview or the landing page. The catalogue's default filter hides such material.

What we do NOT do

  • We do not claim Web of Science indexing for the Russian-language journals. RSCI was excluded from WoS by Clarivate in 2022 due to sanctions. A journal may still declare WoS on its own pages — that is outdated information. We list only currently active databases (РИНЦ, ВАК, Chemical Abstracts).
  • We do not duplicate picofold.com — it is a separate operational product. On this site we provide only links and an explanation of picofold's role within the PicoFold direction.
  • We do not use machine translation as published text. English pages are marked DRAFT and await author review, or are careful adaptations with preserved terminology (never raw Google Translate output).
  • We do not surface speculative material on the catalogue. It remains accessible in the archive with an explicit Hypothesis or Speculation badge, but never on the home page or the directions overview.

What we do

  • Every direction carries an evidence level and a "what is validated / what this does not do" section to prevent over-claims.
  • All publications with a DOI and / or eLibrary ID are listed on the Publications page, with a BibTeX export for citation convenience.
  • English versions are marked DRAFT pending author confirmation — this is not a claim of final translation but a working draft.
  • Any archive material (subscribe.ru newsletters, old forum threads) is imported only after manual classification; politicised and geopolitical topics are rejected regardless of their popularity in the archive.

Where these rules came from

The rules were formalised by the project coordinator after analysing the historical forum (2,046 threads from 2006–2018) and correspondence with A. Kushelev. The key finding from that analysis: the most popular threads in the archive are not the most credible. For example, an EmDrive thread had 33 000 views, but its title ("Sarmat / Satan-Ruby") is fundamentally incompatible with the goal of international scientific visibility. We therefore filter by alignment with evidence level, not by view count.

Who is responsible for what

  • A. Kushelev — author of the original work and scientific content. Final say on the content of any page rests with him.
  • Pavel Pivovarov — catalogue coordinator. Responsible for classification by evidence level, material selection, English adaptations (DRAFT), and the technical implementation of the site.

How to report an error or disagreement

If you believe a material is classified incorrectly — e.g.\ presented as level A but you cannot reproduce it, or conversely a level-C item has independent confirmation we are unaware of — please write via the contact form. We publish critical feedback and revise classifications accordingly.