Open call: review our methodology

Before recommending this site to the world, we want it criticised by people who know this data’s traps. Every comment and our response will be published in full.

The ask

One to two hours, any time in the next six weeks.
Read the methodology and the definitions timeline, poke the data, and send us what is wrong, missing, or misleading.
Comments and our responses are published in full on this page — attributed or anonymous, your choice.
No payment — only public acknowledgement, and a resource your students may cite made better by you.

The five-minute reviewer pack

What it is: a verifiable republication layer over UNHCR / IDMC / UN WPP statistics — content-addressed snapshots, a quarterly DOI (10.5281/zenodo.22087749), daily public validation, metric definitions in seven languages. It produces no data; it produces the rigour needed to cite data.
Self-checks: 21 daily invariants (incl. mapped + unmappable = global total for every metric × 75 years; three golden numbers within 1%). Current snapshot ee18fcb7, data as of 2025-12-31.
Known limits (we confess first): the null≠zero chain trusts the upstream "-" convention; IDPs cover conflict/violence only; OIP creates a 2018 break; the live layer is estimates; per-country coverage scoring is not yet implemented.
Criticism we most want: legal accuracy of the definitions (in all seven languages), missing caveats, whether the responsible-citation rules hold up, and any unintentionally misleading visualisation.

How to respond

Write to [email protected] — any format: bullet points, annotated screenshots, one long e-mail. We will respond point by point, and ask how you wish to be credited before anything is published.

Reviews received

None yet. This page will publish every review and our responses verbatim — including the parts we cannot answer.