Mian Zhang

Review Status

Public evidence, private review boundary.

This page separates public scientific records from active venue review material. Public preprints, Zenodo records, and site pages can be read, cited, and challenged. Active double-blind submissions, anonymous supplements, reviewer correspondence, and private submission links are not public artifacts.

Venue outcomes matter, but rejection or acceptance is not the only verification of a scientific claim.

public DOI claim limit venue status safe challenge
Public DOI Map Claim Boundaries Submit Counterexample
Black and gold evidence gate visual.
Public Preprints, DOI records, site pages
Private Blind packages, supplements, review mail
Venue Status Evidence signal, not final truth
Challenge Route Public target, public counterexample

Public / Non-Public

Use public artifacts for public discussion.

ClassStatusAllowed public useBoundary
Public preprintPublicRead, cite, quote briefly, critique, reproduce.Do not infer hidden review material from it.
Zenodo DOIPublicUse as the stable citation target for archived artifacts.Cite only the public record and version.
Site pagePublicUse for navigation, claim boundaries, demos, and evidence maps.Site text is not a private submission package.
Conference packageNot public while activeNo public quoting, linking, or deanonymizing.Respect venue anonymity until disclosure is allowed.
Anonymous supplementNot public while activeNo reposting, cross-linking, or identity stitching.Keep anonymous artifacts separate from named pages.
Review communicationPrivateNo public excerpt, screenshot, reviewer identity guess, or status leak.Follow venue policy and reviewer confidentiality.
Private submission linkPrivateDo not publish, request, mirror, or embed.Use the public DOI or public page instead.
Allowed

Public DOI citation

Cite the Zenodo record, DOI, version date, and public artifact title. Prefer DOI links over private review URLs.

Allowed

Public claim critique

Challenge exact public wording, formulas, datasets, reproduction commands, and evidence thresholds.

Not Allowed

Anonymous link exposure

Do not publish active double-blind submission links, anonymous supplement links, reviewer communications, or submission-system screenshots.

Not Allowed

Private-system requests

Do not ask for financial execution details, customer data, credentials, or private agent orchestration as public proof.

Venue Status

Acceptance and rejection are review outcomes, not the whole epistemology.

A venue decision is an important signal about fit, clarity, novelty, reviewer confidence, and community standards at a specific time. It is not, by itself, the only validation or invalidation of a scientific claim.

A rejected paper may still contain a correct narrow claim, useful dataset, valid formula, or reproducible negative result. An accepted paper may still need stronger baselines, cleaner boundaries, more replication, or later correction. Public verification should point to the claim, artifact, metric, limitation, and counterexample route, not only to the venue label. 

scientific status = public claim + public artifact + evidence boundary + counterexample pressure + revision history

How To Cite

Cite the public record, not the review channel.

When a public DOI exists, use it as the stable citation target. If a site page summarizes the boundary, cite the page URL only for navigation or current project context.

NeedUseIncludeAvoid
Archive citationZenodo DOI recordAuthor, title, year, DOI, record URL, version if shown.Private submission systems or anonymous supplement URLs.
Claim contextPublic claim boundary pageExact page URL, section name, access date if required.Overstating a page as peer-review acceptance.
Evidence mapPublic evidence page or registryArtifact name, public link, version, metric, limitation.Requests for protected logs or hidden pipelines.
CounterexamplePublic issue or challenge routeTarget claim, public input, expected behavior, observed failure, repair proposal.Private data, credentials, review correspondence, or deanonymization.
Portfolio DOI Open Paper Map Open Evidence Map

Claim Boundary

Read a claim by its evidence envelope.

Each public claim should be read through its named artifacts, methods, datasets, metrics, assumptions, limitations, and known failure modes. If the evidence supports a narrow protocol claim, do not inflate it into a deployment guarantee, finance claim, customer claim, or private-system disclosure obligation.

  • Find the exact public sentence or formula being claimed.
  • Trace it to a public DOI, page, dataset, registry, demo, or repository.
  • Check the stated limitation and whether the evidence actually reaches the wording.
  • Separate venue status from claim status: review outcome is one signal, not the sole scientific test.
  • Do not use public claims to infer private financial execution, customer records, credentials, or agent orchestration.
Read Claim Boundaries Inspect Registries

Submit Counterexamples

Make the objection public, bounded, and replayable.

Counterexamples are welcome when they target public claims with public evidence. A useful report does not need private access. It needs a fixed public target, a challenge class, a minimal replay path, and a bounded repair proposal.

  • Name the public target: DOI, page URL, repository issue, dataset version, formula, table, or section.
  • Choose a challenge class: formula counterexample, data leakage, stronger baseline, reproduction failure, or boundary overreach.
  • Provide the smallest public input, command, row id, toy case, or quote needed to replay the concern.
  • State expected behavior, observed failure, and the narrowest proposed correction.
  • Redact or omit any customer data, credentials, private operational traces, review correspondence, or anonymous links.
counterexample = public target + challenge class + minimal replay + evidence gap + bounded repair
Open Challenge Route Proof Action Issue WisdomBench Issue

Boundary Statement

Public science should be citable and attackable; active anonymous review material should stay anonymous.

Use public DOI records and public pages for public claims. Keep private submissions, anonymous supplements, review communications, operational systems, customer data, credentials, and private orchestration out of public evidence.