The Scientist Seal: SubjectoToClimate's Science Review Process
SubjectToClimate is committed to providing educators with scientifically accurate and pedagogically sound climate change resources. To ensure the integrity of our Teaching Resource Library, every selected resource undergoes a rigorous review by a scientist. This document outlines the science review process and criteria used by our reviewers.
Purpose of the Science Review
The goal of the science review is to assess the scientific accuracy, relevance, and educational value of each resource. Our scientists provide insight into the quality of the science, identifying both strengths and areas of concern. This ensures that teachers can trust the resources they bring into the classroom.
What Scientists Evaluate
Each resource is thoroughly reviewed, with special attention given to the following:
1. Scientific Accuracy
Reviewers verify all figures, tables, datasets, and annotations for accuracy and reliability.
Outdated data, missing labels (such as dates or locations), and broken links are flagged as concerns.
Reviewers verify all figures, tables, datasets, and annotations for accuracy and reliability.
Outdated data, missing labels (such as dates or locations), and broken links are flagged as concerns.
2. Data and Methodology
Scientists examine the validity of any data used, including variables, parameters, and procedures.
Resources are evaluated for appropriate use of models, simulations, or forecasting techniques, especially if these involve mathematical or statistical analysis.
Scientists examine the validity of any data used, including variables, parameters, and procedures.
Resources are evaluated for appropriate use of models, simulations, or forecasting techniques, especially if these involve mathematical or statistical analysis.
3. Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations
Reviewers assess whether the scientific concepts and theories presented in the resource are well-founded and align with current climate science, sustainability, or environmental justice frameworks.
Inconsistencies between the narrative and the data may lead to disapproval.
Example: A resource may be disqualified if its claims are unsupported by the datasets it references.
Reviewers assess whether the scientific concepts and theories presented in the resource are well-founded and align with current climate science, sustainability, or environmental justice frameworks.
Inconsistencies between the narrative and the data may lead to disapproval.
Example: A resource may be disqualified if its claims are unsupported by the datasets it references.
4. Educational Relevance
Resources are evaluated based on their potential to build student skills and enhance understanding of climate science or related fields.
Resources are evaluated based on their potential to build student skills and enhance understanding of climate science or related fields.
5. Use of Simulations and Models
For resources involving simulations or visual models, scientists assess their reliability and ability to accurately represent real-world phenomena.
Questions addressed include: Is the model testable? Are its assumptions reasonable? Can it predict outcomes or explain processes clearly?
For resources involving simulations or visual models, scientists assess their reliability and ability to accurately represent real-world phenomena.
Questions addressed include: Is the model testable? Are its assumptions reasonable? Can it predict outcomes or explain processes clearly?
6. Climate Connection
Scientists determine whether the resource meaningfully connects to one or more of the following domains:
Climate science
Environmental justice
Sustainability science
Scientists determine whether the resource meaningfully connects to one or more of the following domains:
Climate science
Environmental justice
Sustainability science
