Editorial and neutrality policy
ScholarReels · a SheQAI Research initiative
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.
Where they differ, they differ against us. A TeX2Vid render carries a grounding review, and if that review flags anything, submitting it takes an explicit acknowledgement of what was flagged. A video made with another tool faces no such gate, because we do not review a video we did not make. Our own output is the only output we hold back on our own evidence.
No preferential placement for any tool
The sorts you can choose are content signals only: newest, most viewed, most endorsed and most cited. The default gallery order is Featured — a curated order set by our moderators, i.e. human editorial judgement, not an automated ranking; it never reads which tool made a video. 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.
And whatever the format, whoever you are, whatever tool made the video: you certify that you watched it, and that its claims come from the paper. That is asked of every submission — a Short, a Highlight or a Video Abstract, made with any tool. On a Q1/Q2 or A*/A paper it also stands in place of a reviewer; everywhere else it is the floor beneath the reviewer rule, not a substitute for it.
The reviewer requirement applies per submission — each video is reviewed on its own: a named reviewer confirms that video, and a venue's standing applies to that paper. The one thing that carries across your submissions is your own verified standing: a PhD doesn't change per video, so once a moderator has confirmed it, it is remembered. By default, a submission must be reviewed by a qualified reviewer — a researcher with a PhD or a track record of peer-reviewed publications. There are exactly two exceptions, and they exist because the credential is already there:
- The venue carries it. If the paper is published or accepted in a Q1/Q2 journal or an A*/A conference, no reviewer is needed — you certify the video yourself instead.
- You carry it. If you hold a PhD and/or have published in reputed venues, you may submit on your own standing, with no reviewer. Once a moderator has verified it, it is remembered — you won't be asked again on future submissions.
Anything else needs a reviewer — including a preprint, and a venue whose standing you do not declare. A named reviewer verifies with an institutional email and shares a scholarly profile (Google Scholar, or ORCID / a university page). The full rule is in the Service Agreement.
We take SCImago Journal Rank (for journal quartiles) and the CORE conference ranking (for A*/A conferences) as a reference — a guide our moderators consult, not an automated test a venue must pass. Publication evidence is required: an accepted paper attaches its decision letter, a published one gives the venue's DOI.
These credentials and the venue's standing are declared by the submitter and checked by our moderators — who read the acceptance itself. 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.