Evaluate important research
We commission expert reviews of papers, models, forecasts, and decision-relevant gray literature, then publish evaluation packages that others can cite, challenge, and update.
What we do
Independent evaluation and decision-focused synthesis
The Unjournal organizes and commissions public, journal-independent evaluation of quantitative research. In animal welfare, we focus on work that could change funding, policy, advocacy, or research-prioritization decisions, especially where the evidence is scattered, technical, or hard for non-specialists to assess.
Prioritize what needs review
We maintain tools for finding animal-welfare relevant quantitative social science and economics research where independent evaluation may add value.
Turn cruxes into questions
Our Pivotal Questions work turns broad uncertainties into operational questions, belief elicitation, forecasts, workshops when useful, and public synthesis.
Current work
Animal-welfare strands we are building
Cultivated-meat cost and viability questions
We convened a focused online workshop and synthesis process around cultivated-meat cost trajectories, techno-economic cruxes, and forecastable uncertainties. The public synthesis connects the recordings, discussion summary, belief elicitation, and modeling work.
Plant-based substitution and demand estimation
We are developing a Pivotal Question strand on whether and how plant-based products substitute for animal products, including the measurement problem: which empirical designs can credibly estimate substitution across products?
Animal Futures forecasting
We help source and structure forecastable animal-welfare questions, including questions on farmed animals, alternative proteins, policy, AI and animals, and related long-run uncertainties. The questions and forecasts are public in the Animal Futures Tournament.
Public AW evaluation archive
We publish evaluation packages and author responses on animal-welfare and adjacent work, including alternative-protein forecasts, meat-consumption evidence, welfare-cost measurement, and moral psychology.
Evidence so far
What we can document, and what we cannot yet claim
The animal-welfare program is still developing. We can document completed outputs, public author engagement, and some changes prompted by the wider Unjournal model. We do not yet claim that this work has caused a specific animal-welfare funding or policy decision.
Water-treatment authors updated their paper
After two Unjournal evaluations, the authors published a formal response and updated the working paper. The evaluation package records the issues raised and the resulting changes.
An error in an AI-growth proof was corrected
An evaluator identified an error in a central proof in Aghion, Jones, and Jones's work on AI and economic growth. The authors acknowledged it and confirmed a corrected proof; the main result was preserved. See the public record.
Responses and revisions are tracked systematically
Among 57 tracked evaluation packages, 19 papers had a formal or informal author response. Of 22 papers manually assessed for updating, five showed clear substantive updating and seven more included a stated intention to update. The dashboard explains the denominators and caveats.
A decision-focused example: in our March 2026 wellbeing workshop, nine survey respondents reported specific belief changes and research priorities; seven reported improved understanding of practitioner priorities. The full results include positive and critical feedback. These are self-reports from a small, selected sample, not an estimate of causal impact. See the wider evidence and impact overview for our evidence ladder, other public cases, and limitations.
Why it matters
A missing layer between research and decisions
Animal-welfare economics and quantitative social science are still thin fields. A lot of decision-relevant work sits outside top-journal review, in technical reports, models, preprints, industry analyses, or papers whose practical implications are not obvious from the abstract.
That creates a bottleneck for funders and policymakers: they need to know which results are credible, which assumptions drive conclusions, and which uncertainties are worth resolving next.
Our role: We provide public, independent evaluation infrastructure. We are not an advocacy organization, an alternative-protein company, or a group attached to a particular model conclusion, so we can bring optimists, skeptics, domain experts, and mainstream academics into a shared evidence process.
People
Animal-welfare field specialists
Our animal-welfare field specialist team for markets and attitudes includes Josh Tasoff, Kevin Kuruc, Florian Habermacher, Nicolas Treich, Ash Meader, and Brinda Poojary, with others in the broader interested and involved group.
Explore
Key links
Published AW evaluations
Public evaluations relevant to animal welfare, alternative proteins, meat consumption, and moral psychology.
Research database
Browse candidate research and filter to animal welfare and food systems.
AW cruxes
Decision-relevant uncertainties surfaced from discussion and prioritization work.
Animal Futures Tournament
Forecast animal-welfare, alternative-protein, policy, and AI-related uncertainties.
Cultivated-meat synthesis
Workshop summary, crux map, and synthesis around cultivated-meat cost trajectories.
Plant-based substitution PQ
Demand-estimation evidence, operational questions, and workshop planning.
Hypothes.is is embedded on this page. Highlight text to leave a public annotation, correction, or suggested addition.