Activity Review Guide

Are you interested in helping review Open Humans activities? We would love your help! :heart_eyes:

Open Humans activities are diverse: they may be managed by individuals, research teams, organizations, and more. With the exception of activities managed by Open Humans Foundation directly, activities must apply for review to be “approved” on the site. This removes a user limit cap & lists them in the site’s pages.

How it works

  1. An activity requests approval, and a new topic is created in Activity Reviews.
  2. To contribute to a review, reply to a topic with a vote and/or a comment.
  3. Once enough feedback occurs, a decision will be made and the topic will be closed.

Activities that are already approved may undergo a re-review at any time (at the request of Open Humans Foundation, the activity owner, or a member of the community).


Please vote Approve to support approval, or Deny to deny approval. Please give reasons, especially when activities have issues that they might address and/or others should be aware of.

Your vote may change if an activity modifies itself in response to concerns that are raised. If you change your vote, please edit to add the new vote, and retain the old vote with “strikethrough” (<s></s> HTML tags).

Similar to Wikipedia’s approach, the final decision will not necessarily be a strict tally of votes, but should reflect a consensus formed by the discussion process.

Guidelines for reviewers

The primary question to answer is this: "Should this activity be visible and available for all Open Humans members to join?"

The above question is the primary question to consider when reviewing. Answering it may include considering the following:

  • Is this activity following Activity Guidelines?
  • Is this activity communicating clearly about…
    • who manages it?
    • what members will be asked to do?
    • what is in the data it has access to?
    • security, privacy, and data management?
  • Are the claims made by this activity realistic? Are its communications misleading or untruthful?
  • Would a member’s decision to join be sufficiently informed?

While following Activity Guidelines is expected of all activities, the review process is not necessarily limited to this. New situations may arise that lead the community to reconsider the guidelines themselves.


Here’s a template folks can use for posting a project for review:

[Introductory text about what the project is, who is posting it for review, etc. Can be as short or as long as you'd like, you can link to additional information, etc.]


**Should this project be visible and available for all Open Humans members to join?**

Please vote **Approve** or **Deny**, and/or comment.

**Quick links**
* **Activity page:** [fill in link, should start with ""]
* **Project review guide:**
* **Project guidelines:**

**Project info**
* **Title**: [copy from project title on activity page]
* **Managed by:** [copy from project information]
* **Description:** [copy from project description on the activity page]
* **Project website:** [fill in if available]
* **Connections:** [N members] (this helps show how many have already tested a project)
* **Data received:** [fill in with data already on open humans the project requests members to share, if any]
* **Data added:** [fill in with data the project adds to an open human account, if any]
* **Ethics review:** [describe ethics review status and attach documentation (e.g. approval letter), if this activity is listed as a "study"]