My idea would be to build a theoretical classification similar to Kardashev's ladder to consider what is scientific, what is not scientific or what is pseudoscientific.

The Kardashev scale definition would look something like this:

"The Kardashev scale is a theoretical classification proposed by Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev in 1964 to measure the level of technological development of an alien civilization. The scale is based on the amount of energy a civilization is able to collect and use, and is divided into different levels."

Whereas today there are many different research methods, argumentative methods, academic validation methods and tests with a certain percurlarity, difference. Would it be possible to create a theoretical model to classify scientific articles?

Initial considerations

1. Some scientists, academics, philosophers, intellectuals, thinkers may think that the production of a theoretical classification of scientific articles can produce, instead of greater scientific and academic rigor, a tool for manipulating data, statistics and studies.

2. Some people might be skeptical that such a tool would be possible to make, as knowledge and methods can change over time.

3. This initial question is who is writing the first scientific article and would like some help about different authors and proposals or scientific methods. For example, initially I'm thinking of doing a literature review research on different types of scientific, academic and philosophical methods in scientific production. In this sense, I think of starting with Karl Popper, since he is well known and his falsifiability method, as far as I know it today, is still used to some extent. One of my current problems is what alternatives do we have to validate, to make a certain scientific article reliable?

4. I hope initially or previously to use the "Kardashev scale" as a starting point to define the problem of demarcation: "what is science, what is not science, what is pseudoscience". This would be interesting to analyze the degree of accuracy with which a certain level of knowledge is made, produced or used in society. On this data, "we can validate or accept certain knowledge along with a certain ethics, public morals. In the sense of a common, collective, greater good or according to the laws and the constitution that we honor in the sense of consensus, argumentation, discussion, problematization of ideas".

5. Is there any area of study that analyzes, measures, produces curation or review scientific production? If yes, what is the name of this field of study? If this field of study does not exist, how to produce a scientific article in the best way? without a cognitive bias? How many or what criteria could I use when producing or analyzing a scientific article?

  • 3
    This is not really a question and is outside of the scope of this group. Aug 16, 2023 at 17:51
  • What is your end goal here? I should caution you that if you're hoping that your work will be influential, my guess is that you'd have a very rough time of it, especially if you don't already have a strong reputation in some existing field of science. However, if you want to carry this out simply because you find it interesting, then you needn't worry about such concerns and I wish you the best of luck.
    – academic
    Aug 17, 2023 at 10:52

2 Answers 2


What you are suggesting lies at the intersection of two well-worn, difficult, and important ideas.

The effort "to consider what is scientific, what is not scientific or what is pseudoscientific" is known as the demarcation problem.

The analysis and classification of scientific articles is the discipline of bibliometrics.

You sound like you are essentially seeking a bibliometric solution to the demarcation problem. I don't have one, but by showing you the disciplines to look into, I hope I have at least pointed you in the right direction.


You're reinventing existing frameworks. For example, regulatory agencies already do this. Some examples from the US include the EPA and FDA.

For example, the US EPA has Guidance for Identifying, Selecting and Evaluating Open Literature Studies that

provides guidance for Office of Pesticide Program (OPP) staff to assist in their evaluation of open literature studies of pesticides. Consistent with the Open Government Initiative, this guidance is also intended to make transparent to the public how we identify, select, and ensure that the data we use in pesticide risk assessments is of sufficient scientific quality.

Likewise, the FDA provides Guidance Documents. For example, the clinical guidance page notes that

Guidance documents listed below represent the agency's current thinking on the conduct of clinical trials, good clinical practice and human subject protection.

Guidance documents are not binding for FDA or the public. Guidance should be viewed as recommendations unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. An alternative approach may be used if the approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

NASA also has Technology Readiness Levels that are also related to your idea, but less so than the EPA and FDA.


You must log in to answer this question.