Reviewer Standards

Market Proof Lab names independent reviewers only after identity, credentials, review scope, and conflict disclosures have been documented and verified. Until verification is complete, outputs use editorial review language rather than implying outside expert endorsement. This page describes the standards applied to all named reviewer relationships at the Lab.

Named reviewer policy

A named reviewer at Market Proof Lab is a real person who has agreed in writing to review a defined scope of research — specific methodology elements, validation frameworks, or operational criteria — and whose credentials and conflicts have been independently verified before their name is published on any Lab page.

The Lab does not publish invented reviewers, implied credentials, ghost endorsements, or historical affiliations that have not been verified and consented to. A reviewer whose profile states "Associate Professor, IESE Business School" must verifiably hold that position and must have consented to its publication on the Lab platform. A reviewer whose profile describes 15 years of enterprise software implementation experience must have that background documented through publicly accessible professional history.

The named reviewer relationship does not transfer editorial control. A reviewer may flag factual errors, recommend additional sources, note where editorial interpretation seems unsupported by the evidence record, or identify where proof criteria appear inconsistent. They do not control the Lab's conclusions. Research conclusions remain the editorial responsibility of the Market Proof Lab Editorial Desk — specifically, Publisher David Okonkwo, Director of Research Dr. Ravi Mehrotra, and Managing Editor Nadia Petrova.

Named reviewers review defined scopes, not the entire Lab output. A research design reviewer who confirms the logical consistency of the Lab's validation methodology has not endorsed the Lab's vendor-specific conclusions, market assessments, or recommendations. The scope of each reviewer's contribution is documented on their profile page and on any research pages they reviewed.

Current reviewer roster

Market Proof Lab's named reviewer roster currently has two proposed reviewers pending confirmation. No reviewers have been activated — profiles are published at this stage to document the pending process transparently, not to imply active endorsement of Lab outputs.

Named reviewers will be added to this roster as Active and linked from reviewed research only after all verification steps are complete. Profiles marked "pending confirmation" are in process — the reviewer has been identified and initial scope discussions are underway, but credentials, conflict disclosures, and scope agreements have not yet been fully documented and independently verified.

Verification requirements

Before any reviewer is named on a Market Proof Lab page as Active, the following must be documented:

• Public identity: A verifiable public profile — institutional faculty page, professional LinkedIn profile, academic publication record, or written permission to publish a specific biography. The profile must be independently accessible, not reliant on the reviewer's own claims about their credentials.
• Relevant credentials: Evidence of credentials claimed — academic degree, institutional affiliation, professional role, or demonstrated subject matter expertise directly relevant to the categories they will review. Credentials that cannot be independently verified through public sources are not published.
• Review scope agreement: A written description of what the reviewer has agreed to review — research design methodology, operational criteria, factual accuracy for a specific category, technical terminology, or another defined scope. Reviewers do not have blanket authority over all Lab content.
• Conflict disclosure: A complete disclosure of employment, advisory, affiliate, vendor, investor, or client relationships relevant to the categories in their review scope, at the time of the review engagement. Disclosure must cover not only current relationships but relationships that ended within the period relevant to the categories being reviewed.
• Review date: The date on which review was completed, tied to specific pages, methodology versions, or content versions reviewed. Review is time-stamped, not perpetual.

Review scope and limitations

Named reviewers at Market Proof Lab review defined scopes — not the entire publication. This limitation is a design feature, not a deficiency. A reviewer whose expertise is market research design is qualified to assess whether the Lab's validation methodology is logically consistent and methodologically defensible. They are not necessarily qualified to assess whether specific vendor claims in a specific technology category are supported by the evidence. Assigning them both tasks would produce a weaker review standard, not a stronger one.

The Lab maintains two reviewer roles structured around this principle. The Market Research Design Reviewer — currently Dr. Alejandro Reyes, pending confirmation — reviews research design frameworks, validation methodology, and evidence classification standards. The Operations and Implementation Reviewer — currently Sarah Nakamura, pending confirmation — reviews implementation criteria, operational readiness frameworks, and decision scenarios from a practitioner perspective. Neither reviewer crosses into the other's defined scope.

Review does not constitute endorsement of the Lab's editorial conclusions. A reviewer who confirms that the Lab's research design framework is methodologically defensible has not endorsed the specific vendor assessments, market conclusions, or capability classifications published in any proof report.

The scope of each reviewer's contribution is published on their profile page. Research pages that have been reviewed note the reviewer, the scope of their review, and the review date. Pages that have not been reviewed do not include reviewer attribution.

Conflict disclosure requirements

Market Proof Lab requires full conflict disclosure before any reviewer engagement. The proof-validation context of the Lab's research makes conflict management more stringent than in general editorial contexts: if a reviewer has a material commercial relationship with an organization being assessed in research they are reviewing, the review cannot provide the independent verification function it is intended to serve.

Conflicts that must be disclosed include: current employment by or consulting for organizations in the reviewer's review scope; equity ownership or investor relationships; affiliate, referral, or revenue-sharing relationships with covered organizations; advisory board membership at organizations covered by or adjacent to the Lab's research; and any material financial relationship with an organization whose products, services, or vendor claims may be assessed in the reviewed research.

Conflicts that emerge after a review has been published are investigated. If an undisclosed conflict is confirmed, the review annotation on the relevant pages is removed and the reviewer profile is updated or retracted accordingly. This process is described in the Lab's disclosure policy.

Reviewers with active conflicts in a specific category do not review research covering that category, regardless of their general expertise. This is not a judgment about the reviewer's intentions. It is a structural requirement of the Lab's proof independence standard.

Reviewer bio standard

A verified reviewer profile on Market Proof Lab must include: full name and credentials as publicly documented, professional role and organizational affiliation (or independent status), topical expertise description relevant to the review scope, review scope statement (what was reviewed, and what was explicitly not reviewed), conflict disclosure current at the time of the review engagement, a verifiable profile link or institutional page, and the date the profile was last reviewed for accuracy.

Reviewer profiles do not include promotional language about the reviewer's consulting practice, personal projects, or organizational affiliations beyond what is necessary to establish the basis for their review scope. The profile exists to establish credibility for the review function — not to serve as a marketing asset for the reviewer or the institutions they are affiliated with.

Pending reviewer profiles — including the current profiles for Dr. Alejandro Reyes and Sarah Nakamura — include background information and proposed scope as disclosed during initial engagement discussions. They do not imply active review or endorsement of any Lab output.

Proof independence and review

The Lab's proof-first operating model creates a specific relationship between reviewer engagement and research output. Because proof criteria must be fixed before any vendor is assessed, and because the criteria themselves are the primary accountability mechanism in the validation framework, a reviewer who confirms the methodological defensibility of those criteria is performing a meaningful verification function. They are not rubber-stamping conclusions — they are checking whether the foundation on which conclusions are built is sound.

This is why the Lab's reviewer structure separates research design review from practitioner review. Research design review — currently the proposed scope for Dr. Alejandro Reyes — addresses whether the methodology for establishing proof criteria is consistent with defensible standards in market research and evidence classification. Practitioner review — currently the proposed scope for Sarah Nakamura — addresses whether the operational and implementation criteria in proof frameworks reflect how enterprise software decisions actually work in practice. Both functions improve the proof framework without touching the editorial conclusions the framework is used to reach.

Neither reviewer role authorizes the reviewer to approve or block publication. The decision to publish, revise, or withhold a proof report rests with the Lab's editorial team. Reviewer input informs that decision but does not control it.

Suggest or apply as a reviewer

Market Proof Lab welcomes reviewer applications from academic researchers, independent practitioners, and domain experts whose credentials and proposed review scope are relevant to the Lab's active proof disciplines. To apply or suggest a reviewer, contact [email protected] with:

• Full name and verifiable public profile link
• Relevant credentials and institutional affiliation or independent status
• Proposed review scope — which methodology elements, proof disciplines, or categories you are qualified to review
• Conflict disclosure covering relevant commercial, advisory, or financial relationships

Reviewer applications are reviewed on a rolling basis. Acceptance depends on credential verification, relevance to active proof disciplines, absence of undisclosable conflicts, and the Lab's current reviewer roster needs. The Lab does not publish reviewer profiles for candidates whose credentials cannot be independently verified through public sources.