The platform commits to two things that are in tension: anyone can contribute data, and the data is rigorous enough for professionals to trust. The review process is how these coexist.
The long tail of environmental data is too vast for any single database to cover, so open contribution is necessary. But LCA values don't naturally converge — they depend on system boundaries, allocation choices, and regional context that non-specialists routinely get wrong, in ways that look defensible but aren't. So contribution without review is a credibility liability. Review is the mechanism that makes open contribution add up to professional-grade data.
What a contribution is
Any user-submitted unit of data — a new activity, a new flow, or an update to an existing one. A contribution can carry the data itself, contributor-entered accuracy scores, source citations, and a rationale. Contributors are encouraged to provide accuracy information and sources but not required to; missing components fall back to conservative defaults.
A contribution moves through a small set of states:
unreviewed → under review → approved / rejected / needs changes
↓
published ← visible in default calculations
↓
contested ← active dispute
↓
re-reviewed
Only approved and published contributions count as reviewed for accuracy scoring and for visibility in high-stakes surfaces.
Three tiers of scrutiny
Not every contribution needs the same level of review. The tier is assigned automatically, based on the contribution's significance.
| Tier | Applies to | Reviewers | Turnaround |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lightweight | Contributions that displace nothing, aren't regulated, and have low downstream visibility. e.g. a new artisan-bakery activity in a region not yet covered. | One reviewer | A few days |
| Standard | Most contributions — new activities others may use, updates that change accuracy scores. e.g. a corn-farming activity where one already exists. | Two reviewers (a third adjudicates if they disagree by more than 0.15 on a score) | A week or two |
| High-stakes | Anything that appears in company comparisons, sits in a regulated category (food labelling, building materials, fuel), or contests a published number. | Three reviewers incl. a credentialed LCA professional, plus a public comment period | Weeks |
A reviewer who encounters a contribution that warrants more scrutiny can escalate it.
Who reviews
Reviewer status is granted, not assumed, and there are three ways in:
- Credentialed — verified LCA credentials (certified-professional status, peer-reviewed publications, recognised-society membership) grant full reviewer rights immediately.
- Reputation-based — a track record of accepted contributions earns an invitation to apply, granting reviewer rights in the categories where expertise is demonstrated.
- Domain-expert — a chemist, transport engineer, or hydrologist can review contributions in their domain without being an LCA practitioner.
| Level | Who | Can review |
|---|---|---|
| General | Reputation-based, broad LCA background | Lightweight & standard, in approved categories |
| Domain | Domain-expert entry | Lightweight & standard, in their domain |
| Senior | Credentialed LCA professional | All tiers |
| Adjudicator | Senior reviewer on dispute panels | Dispute resolution |
Reviewers carry a reputation score that rises with accurate, consistent reviews and falls with ones later overturned. Status can be suspended or revoked for conflicts of interest, systematic inaccuracy, or misconduct — and revocation is recorded, not erased.
What a review does
A reviewer's primary job is to set accurate accuracy scores — source, geography, temporal — on the flows they review, and to confirm the underlying activity and flow declarations are methodologically sound. They read the contribution, inspect the declared records, evaluate the cited sources, and may adjust any component (with an explanation). Each review records one of three decisions: approved, rejected, or needs changes. Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before reviewing.
Approval can also elevate a source to peer-reviewed or verified status, which raises the source-accuracy of every flow that cites it.
Disputes
Because the platform surfaces head-to-head comparisons with real commercial consequences, contested numbers get a structured path. A dispute can be raised by a reviewer, by the subject of a contribution, or by a qualified third party, and it can challenge the assigned accuracy scores, the methodological soundness of a declaration, or an alleged conflict of interest in the original review.
Disputes go to a panel of senior-reviewer adjudicators, who uphold, modify, or
overturn the original decision. While contested, data stays usable in calculations
but carries a visible contested flag, and consumer comparison surfaces hold it back
from head-to-head views until resolved. Repeat disputes without new evidence face a higher
bar — disputes can't be used to suppress valid data.
Keeping data honest over time
- Every review action is auditable — who reviewed what, when, what scores they set, what conflicts they disclosed. A published result can be reconstructed as it was understood at the time, even if reviews later change.
- Temporal decay degrades the temporal component as data ages, triggering a lighter re-review that confirms the contribution is still valid and resets the clock.
- Reviews are open by default. Reviewer name and credentials are visible; anonymity is opt-in with cause (and always auditable internally), because anonymous reviews are less defensible to outsiders.
The process is deliberately formal, because the platform's professional credibility depends on it.
See also: Accuracy & confidence · Core concepts · What Economics. is.