The SAPPHO scientific evidence platform is a space in which every-day statements revolving around the Sustainable Development Goal of Gender Equality are classified as evidence or hoax. Sexist comments will be not published in this platform, and neither will be racist comments or others against the Human Rights. All posts will be reviewed for compliance with ethical requirements by the editorial team in less than 24h.
It is based on a label validation mechanism. The platform will not decide whether something can be considered evidence or not. On the contrary, it will provide evidence supporting or rebutting any statements regarding the SDG of gender.
– As contributor, you can open a new post and share a statement regarding the SDG of gender. The statement can come from a variety of sources, including daily-life experiences. However, only data coming from scientific papers published in JCR or SCOPUS journals will be considered as scientific evidence. Scientific contributions must follow ethical principles and be representative of the existing debates and scientific literature in the field.
– As commenter, you can reply to any statement published with data based on scientific evidence or daily life experience.
The scientific debate of the platform will be in English; you can make use of online translators for help. Daily-life experiences can be posted in any language. As well, posts and comments can be posted under the author’s name or under a pseudonym.
Each statement will be opened for 15 days and after this period the Board will close the conversation classifying the statement with the corresponding label considering the evidence shared. After that the statement will be classified in one of the following categories:
The Sappho platform recognizes as scientific evidence those contributions which have been validated by the international scientific community. Thus, it comprises studies published in journals indexed in Journal Citation Report (JCR) and SCOPUS.
After 6 months, any statement can be reopened if there are comments or new published evidence that challenges its current categorization.
Topics classified as needing more evidence or controversy will serve both to review the evidence and to motivate new studies.