Standard Hashtags

A key principle of is that anyone can tag their posts anywhere (Google+, a blog, twitter, etc.) with the appropriate hashtags, and they’ll automatically be included in the index for whatever paper(s) they discuss. Right now this works with Google+, but we’ll extend this to other sources soon.

how to tag your posts manually

If you make a post or recommendation directly from, the right hashtags will automatically be added to your post. But you can also tag your posts yourself (even if you have never logged in to; indeed, if you have old posts that discuss specific papers, you could go back and edit them to add these tags). Please remember that hashtags cannot contain any characters other than letters, numbers, and the underscore character. So #generalRelativity is a valid hashtag, but #general-relativity is not! (we didn’t make these rules; Twitter did).

Here are the hashtags and paper ID formats to use:

  • #spnetwork This marks your post for indexing by This hashtag is required.
  • an ID for the specific paper you are discussing. The specific tag depends on the origin of the paper:
    • arXiv: simply use the standard arXiv paper reference, e.g. arXiv:1302.4871; you can copy this directly from the arXiv website. A single space after the colon is permissible.
    • Pubmed: simply use the standard Pubmed ID code as shown on any Pubmed search page, e.g. PMID:22291635. A single space after the colon is permissible.
    • Digital Object Identifier (DOI): virtually all papers published in journals now have a DOI, which you can generally find on the paper’s first page, or on the journal’s webpage for the paper, e.g. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00001. You can copy this directly from a published paper or search page. A single space after the colon is permissible; the word “doi” can be upper- or lower-case.
  • while not required, we strongly suggest that you include a topic hashtag for your research interest area. E.g. if there is a hashtag that people in your field commonly use for posting on Twitter, use it. If you have to make up a new hashtag, keep it intuitive and follow “camelCase” capitalization e.g. #openPeerReview.
  • while not required, we suggest that you also include a URL for the paper on, so your readers can click to see the original paper and all discussion about it. Unfortunately, clicking the paper ID in Google+ will not accomplish that, because Google+ does not know what “arxiv”, “pubmed” or “DOI” mean, or how they should be handled. You can get this URL by simply searching with a paper ID on the homepage.

That’s all you need!

Optional tags


A central principle of is that innovations can spread most effectively if individual scientists simply recommend the papers they consider “essential reading” for their own work, and subscribe to receive recommendations from other scientists whose interests overlap theirs (and whose judgment they trust). It seeks to facilitate that process by unifying all discussion about a given paper on popular social networks (Google+ first, Twitter and others soon). So start making recommendations, and will do the work to help others find your recommendations and subscribe to receive your future recommendations!

To mark a post as a recommendation, simply add one of the two following hashtags:

  • #recommend

    This means that you found the paper valuable for your research, and thus recommend that others who share that research interest would also find it valuable.

  • #mustread

    This means you consider the paper “required reading” for your research – it changed how you think or what you’re going to do. This is the strongest level of recommendation on

General user actions

  • #question: this post asks a question about the paper.
  • #agree: you agree with the paper. This will typically be used as a lightweight “upvote / downvote” poll, an easy way for people to declare themselves on one side or another of an argument.
  • #disagree: you disagree with the paper.

Open Peer Review

  • #valid: the paper’s claims meet your field’s standards of evidence, in your judgment.
  • #uncertain: the evidence for a claim is not strong enough
  • #unsupported: no valid evidence for a claim
  • #wrong: you’re sure a claim is incorrect (provide your evidence!)
  • #precedes: one of the paper’s claims appears to have already been published by previous publication A (provide its paper ID).
  • #assessing: you intend to assess the paper’s validity, at least in part.
  • #assessingAll: you can assess all aspects of the paper, because you are expert in all aspects of the paper, i.e. you have performed similar analyses using similar methods on similar data.
  • #exit: you intend no further consideration of this paper (barring unforeseen new information).
  • #majorResult: this statement applies to the paper’s main claim(s)
  • #minorResult: this statement applies to a minor point that is not one of the paper’s main claims.

Table Of Contents

Previous topic Overview

Next topic

Ways to Get Involved

This Page