trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Listing peer-review contributions on an academic CV is standard professional practice.
the verdict
COMMON KNOWLEDGE
no citation needed for this one
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
no sources on either side

Listing professional activities such as peer review contributions on an academic curriculum vitae is universally recognized and accepted practice in academia, making citation unnecessary.

See more details
The analysis

The claim asserts that listing peer review contributions on an academic CV is standard professional practice. This is a matter of everyday professional convention and academic norms, making it common knowledge. None of the retrieved papers specifically evaluate or test whether CV listing is standard practice, as they focus on topics like AI reviewer selection, systematic reviews, or barriers to medical student research.

Everything we examined (12)
  1. Enhancing peer review efficiency: A mixed‐methods analysis of artificial intelligence‐assisted reviewer selection across academic disciplinespeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  2. Barriers to undergraduate medical students' research engagement in Pakistan: a qualitative exploration.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  3. Perspectives on scientific error.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  4. Working in Classpeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  5. ReviewGuard: Enhancing Deficient Peer Review Detection via LLM-Driven Data Augmentationpeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  6. A Supervised Machine Learning Approach for Assessing Grant Peer Review Reportspeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  7. Guidance for sharing computational models of neural stimulation: from project planning to publication.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  8. The KRESCENT 2.0 Health Research Training Platform Application Process: Program Report.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  9. Taking it a step farther: acknowledging librarians’ systematic review work in the promotion or tenure processpeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  10. Assessment of dispersion metrics for estimating single-cell transcriptional variability.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  11. Open Data In Neurophysiology: Advancements, Solutions & Challenges.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  12. Confidentiality, Peer Review, and the Submission Case Databasepeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked05 Aug 2026
judged → COMMON KNOWLEDGE · 9505 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt