Referee program
Become a referee
EMGravity is built around an extraordinary empirical claim. Anything we publish needs to be reviewable by people who can call us on our bullshit. Referees are the people who do that.
What the role is
Independent technical review
A referee on EMGravity is exactly what the term means in the physics literature: a person with the relevant technical background who reviews what's being claimed and pushes back if something doesn't hold up. The difference here is that you're reviewing the program in flight, not a finished paper.
You get access, behind the login, to:
- The Development page — live lab cam, prototype status, current focus.
- The Test Results page — published bench tests with raw data points, voltage² scaling, persistence decay curves, event log, instrumentation notes.
- The Hardware Builds page — build records with materials, build video, and wiring / Faraday-cage construction details.
- The ability to leave reviewer comments directly on builds (and, in the next iteration, results). Comments go into moderation and are made public after admin review.
In return, you tell us what you see. Faraday cage built wrong? Say so. Instrumentation drift not accounted for? Flag it. Voltage measurement chain looks suspect? Demand a fix. Suspect ion wind despite our claims to the contrary? Tell us what configuration you want to see and we'll publish the run.
What we're looking for
Credentialed reviewers
We are not crowdsourcing this. The point of having referees is that they hold the program to a higher standard than the public internet does. Approvals are individual. Strong candidates have one or more of:
- Experimental physics background — PhD or post-doc work in electromagnetics, precision force metrology, gravitational physics, plasma, or HV dielectric breakdown.
- High-voltage engineering experience — professional or hobbyist work with HV DC supplies, corona / Trichel pulse measurement, asymmetric capacitor experiments, or related hardware. Independent replicators of the Brown / Aurigema-Buhler effect are particularly welcome.
- Aerospace propulsion or research-engineering — prior work at NASA, DARPA, AFRL, ARL, defense primes, university aerospace departments, or comparable.
- Established reviewer reputation — published peer reviewer or technical reviewer in physics, propulsion, or electromagnetics literature.
- Skeptical priors are welcome — you don't have to think the framework is right to be a referee. You have to be willing to engage with it honestly. We'd rather hear “this is wrong because X” from a credentialed skeptic than “cool!” from a non-specialist.
How to apply
One signed-in form
The application is built into the sign-up flow. Create an account using your real name and institutional email — anonymous or pseudonymous referees are not accepted, since the credibility of the review program depends on knowing who is doing the reviewing — then fill in the short form on the next page.
The form asks for your reviewer role, the angle you'd review from, and any optional links (institutional page, ORCID, LinkedIn, prior work). A CV is not required; if the inventor already knows you, that's acceptable in place of formal credentials. Approvals are decided per-application and you'll see status updates inside the app.
Sign up to apply
Create an account with your real name and institutional email. The application form is the next page after sign-up.
Sign up