rules discussion

I've seen a few complaints over the past few weeks about there being a lot of psuedoscience, and there has been a fair amount of reports.

I figured it would be a good idea to update the rules on the sidebar to clearly lay out what is and isn't allowed.

I think a tagging system might help to keep down on the spam and elevate real scientific sources. These are just a draft and more rules could be added in the future if they are needed.

Current draft (work in progress, add suggestions in comments):

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

Submission Rules:

1. All posts must be flagged with an appropriate tag and must be scientific in nature. All posts not following these guidelines will be removed.
2. All posts must be peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, unless flagged as news or discussion. No pseudoscience.
3. No self-promotion, blogspam, videos, or memes. See list of unapproved sources below.

Comment Rules:

1. Civility to other users, be kind.
2. See rule #1.
3. Please stay on the original topic in the post. New topics should be referred to a new post/discussion thread.
4. See rule #1 again. Personal attacks, trolling, or aggression to other users will result in a ban.
5. Report incivility, trolling, or otherwise bad actors. We are human so we only see what is reported.

Flag Options

1. [Peer reviewed]
2. [News]
3. [Discussion]

List of potential predatory journals & publishers (do not post from these sources) ::: spoiler List of unapproved sources:

• Psypost
• Sciencealert
• (any other popsci site that uses titles generally regarded as clickbait) :::

I'm not on 24/7 but I'll try to update these when I get a chance.