A SheQAI Research initiative.
Editorial and neutrality policy
ScholarReels is run by SheQAI Research, which also makes TeX2Vid, a tool that turns LaTeX papers into video. To maintain high quality and address conflicts of interest, we outline the following editorial and neutrality policy.
Any tool, any researcher
ScholarReels indexes research videos regardless of how they were made. Video made with TeX2Vid has no advantage here: not in eligibility, not in review, not in ranking. Video made with any other tool, or with none, is submitted the same way and held to the same standard.
Concretely: a video made with our own tool goes through the same submission, the same email confirmation, the same review requirement and the same moderation queue as one made elsewhere. There is no shorter path for our output.
No preferential placement for any tool
Video recommendation is by content signals only: newest, most viewed, most endorsed and most cited — the four sorts you can see and choose. The video that loads in the player is either one that matches the channels you follow or a random one. Nothing in our ranking code knows which tool made a video.
Every video is reviewed before it appears
Nothing is auto-published — including video made with our own tool. Every submission enters a moderation queue and a human approves it before it is visible.
To submit, you must hold an inbox-verified institutional email address, and confirm each submission from that inbox. Your name, role, and affiliation are recorded with the video.
A submission must also be reviewed by a PhD-holding reviewer, or published or accepted in reputed Q1/Q2 journals or A*/A conferences, or submitted by a researcher who holds a PhD and/or has published in reputed venues. A named reviewer needs to verify with the institution email and share a scholarly profile, e.g. Google Scholar or ORCID. The full rule is in the Service Agreement.
These credentials and the venue's standing are declared by the submitter and checked by our moderators. We do not verify them automatically.
What gets a video turned down
Moderators turn a video down when:
- The underlying work is not scientifically sound.
- It says things the paper does not. Claims, numbers or conclusions that the source paper does not support — the single most common reason.
- There is no resolvable paper. We cannot find the preprint, paper, or record the video is based on.
- The attestation does not hold up. The declared role, affiliation, venue standing, or credential does not survive a look — for example, a claimed authorship that the paper does not support.
- It is promotional. A product pitch, a lab advert, or a recruitment video presented as a research video.
- Authorship or license is undisclosed. Someone else's paper presented as your own, or licensed material shared without attribution or without a license that permits it.
- It is unusable. Broken audio or video, unreadable slides, or the wrong file.
Where the problem is fixable, we ask for changes rather than reject — you get the moderator's note and can resubmit.
We do decline videos built on work that is not scientifically sound. An index of research video is only as good as the research in it.
Checking us
If you believe a video was unfairly favored or suppressed — including in SheQAI's favor — write to us via our contact form and say so. If we get this wrong, we would rather hear it.
This policy may be updated from time to time when required.