# Reviewer Outreach System This file is the working outreach system for turning cold contact into documented review. The objective is not praise, partnership language, or vague interest. The objective is: 1. get a reply 2. convert the reply into one narrow review 3. capture the review scope clearly 4. incorporate feedback visibly 5. ask for acknowledgment permission only after real review exists ## Core Ask Use the smallest serious ask: > Would someone be willing to review one page or 10 sample records and tell me what feels weakest, overstated, missing, risky, or methodologically immature? Do not default to: - "Would you partner with us?" - "Would you endorse this?" - "Would you review the whole project?" ## Required Links - Public MVP: https://maximilian-kornstein.github.io/campus-evidence-lab/ - Reviewer brief: https://maximilian-kornstein.github.io/campus-evidence-lab/reviewer-brief/ - Methodology: https://maximilian-kornstein.github.io/campus-evidence-lab/methodology/ - Research guide: https://maximilian-kornstein.github.io/campus-evidence-lab/research-guide/ - Trust packet: https://maximilian-kornstein.github.io/campus-evidence-lab/trust/ - Reviewer queue: https://maximilian-kornstein.github.io/campus-evidence-lab/reviewer-queue/ ## Initial Email: Default Reviewer Version Subject options: - Request for a narrow review of Campus Evidence Lab - Methodology review request for a public-source campus archive - Source-audit review request: Campus Evidence Lab Template: ```text Hi [Name/Team], I’m reaching out because your work seems closely related to one part of Campus Evidence Lab, a public-source archive of campus civil-rights records. I’m not asking for endorsement. I’m asking for one narrow critical review. The smallest useful asks are: 1. one-page methodology review 2. 10-record source-audit review 3. one-page responsible-use / no-ranking language review The most useful feedback would be what feels weakest, overstated, missing, risky, or methodologically immature. Public MVP: https://maximilian-kornstein.github.io/campus-evidence-lab/ Reviewer brief: https://maximilian-kornstein.github.io/campus-evidence-lab/reviewer-brief/ Methodology: https://maximilian-kornstein.github.io/campus-evidence-lab/methodology/ If helpful, I can send a 10-record packet and three narrow review questions. Thank you, Maximilian Kornstein maxkornstein04@gmail.com ``` ## Audience Variants ### Research center / professor Use when the reviewer is strongest on method, categorization, public-interest research, or higher-ed framing. Swap the opener to: ```text I’m reaching out because your work on higher education, civil rights, public data, or bias documentation seems directly relevant to the way this archive is scoped. ``` Preferred ask: ```text Would someone be willing to review the methodology page or a 10-record sample and tell me what should be stricter before the archive grows? ``` ### Civil-rights organization Use when the reviewer is strongest on public-interest risk, use limits, category framing, or responsible interpretation. Swap the opener to: ```text I’m reaching out because I want the archive’s use limits, source standards, and category language reviewed by people with stronger civil-rights expertise than mine. ``` Preferred ask: ```text Would someone be willing to review one page or 10 sample records and tell me where the archive is too loose, too broad, or too easy to misuse? ``` ### Journalist / editor / newsroom Use when the contact may use the archive for reporting rather than methodology critique. Swap the opener to: ```text I’m reaching out because your reporting covers higher education, campus climate, civil rights, or public-records questions. ``` Preferred ask: ```text I’m not asking for coverage by default. I’m asking whether the archive is legible and restrained enough to be useful as a reporting surface. ``` Then point them to: - press brief - journalist guide - one memo ### Clinic / legal reviewer Use when the reviewer is strongest on evidentiary caution, institutional response language, or public-claim limits. Swap the opener to: ```text I’m reaching out because the project needs legal-methodological scrutiny around evidentiary caution, public claims, and what the archive should not imply. ``` Preferred ask: ```text Would someone be willing to review the no-ranking / no-overclaiming language or a 10-record sample for evidentiary caution? ``` ## Follow-Up Ladder ### Follow-up 1: no reply after 5-7 days ```text Hi [Name/Team], I wanted to briefly follow up on my note about Campus Evidence Lab. I know a full review may not be realistic. Even one sentence on what seems most risky, overstated, missing, or methodologically weak would be useful. Reviewer brief: https://maximilian-kornstein.github.io/campus-evidence-lab/reviewer-brief/ Thank you, Maximilian Kornstein ``` ### Follow-up 2: no reply after another 7-10 days ```text Hi [Name/Team], I wanted to make one final follow-up on Campus Evidence Lab in case the reviewer brief is useful to your work or easier to route internally. If there is a better person for a narrow methodology or source-audit review, I would be grateful for a redirect. Reviewer brief: https://maximilian-kornstein.github.io/campus-evidence-lab/reviewer-brief/ Thank you, Maximilian Kornstein ``` Then stop. ## Conversion Rule Once someone replies positively, stop sending broad context. Move immediately to one of these: - send 10-record packet - send one-page methodology request - send one-page no-ranking / use-limit request - offer a 15-minute call only if they invite it The moment of reply is where generic outreach should become a narrow review task. ## Do Not Do - Do not imply partnership before review exists. - Do not ask for “positive feedback.” - Do not ask for endorsement. - Do not ask them to review the full site unless they offer. - Do not send the exact same opener to every recipient. - Do not list outreach as impact. - Do not ask for public acknowledgment before real review is complete. ## Success Standard A successful outreach is not “they liked it.” A successful outreach is: - they replied - they reviewed one narrow artifact - they gave feedback or use-oriented reaction - you logged it - you improved the project from it - you asked permission before any public acknowledgment