Bring evidence.
Help shape the standard.

FIND YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

Who can apply, and what each role does

Researchers, practitioners, data specialists, engineers, scholars and experienced administrators may express interest. Describe relevant work and the scope you can assess. Staff check expertise, identity, availability and conflicts before making an appointment. A role describes a capability; the person also needs an assignment to the exact submission and stage.

What to include in a role application

Give your name, contact email, affiliation if relevant, requested responsibility, areas of expertise, links to public research or professional work, availability and an explicit interests declaration. State relevant limitations as well as experience. For administration, explain records, editorial or governance experience and the scope of authority requested. Staff must independently verify contact ownership and appointment authority before granting access.

After appointment, use your own account and complete the secure invitation setup. Assigned standards duties and evidence tasks appear in your reviewer workspace. Keep your Society authenticator: formal governance decisions require a fresh code even if you choose to disable authenticator confirmation for ordinary sign-in. Journal reviewers use the journal workspace and its editorial assignments.

Apply for Society review work Apply for Society administration · Apply for journal review work · Apply for editorial administration

FROM PROPOSAL TO EXACT DECISION

How the Society standards workflow works

Each review identifies a precise version and retained evidence. An old approved recommendation does not approve new observations. A new complete candidate receives a fresh review record; earlier submissions remain history.

1. Proposal and screening

   Submit a bounded question, change or evidence offer against an exact standard, dataset or gap. Staff check scope and route it. Recommendation acceptance authorizes further work; it does not admit data or authorize production.

2. Exact construction approval and draft registration

   The administrator registers the exact retained method and appoints authorities. Construction review checks aggregation, normalization and temporal rules. Complete construction approval before empirical admissions change the original evidence binding. An unchanged, previously approved construction retains its immutable approval; a fresh dataset still needs its own subsequent reviews.

3. Assign the empirical work

   The administrator starts an empirical remediation workspace, appoints researchers to individual gaps and appoints a separate Data Authority. Researchers see their named work at sign-in, including when they have no ordinary assessment assignment.

4. Qualify the provider and admit the observations

   Researchers retain original primary-source files with their actual HTTPS source and retrieval time. Provider proposals include institutional identity, official hosts, definitions, coverage, revision policy, rights and provenance cluster. Observation proposals bind exact source values and metadata. The Data Authority independently accepts, requests changes or rejects. Existing admission validators remain mandatory.

5. Resolve each precise gap

   Submit admitted observations and an explanation of the required fact, population, period and comparability. The Data Authority separately assesses the closure. Corrections use new immutable versions and references to prior proposals. A receipt, source download or broad family-coverage label alone does not resolve a missing economic fact.

6. Bind and validate the full candidate

   Select the complete admitted observation field and identify every C1–C4 input over the unchanged common domain. Document canonical units, supported physical or legal unit conversions and comparability. After independent binding acceptance, validation checks all gaps, current admissions, coverage, annual alignment, independence, exact source replay and the frozen computation. A BLOCKED report lists work still required.

7. Create a fresh exact review

   A current PASS report permits the administrator to freeze a new candidate and review ID with fresh authenticator confirmation. The server reruns the checks. The new reviewers can inspect the retained source proposals, admissions and closure history. Old dataset decisions and assignments are not copied.

8. Complete formal standards decisions

   The exact registered method receives independent constitutional review and methodology approval from the appointed authorities. The registrar cannot approve its own method. Methodology activation requires complete admitted empirical validation as well as the formal decisions.

9. Record the independent production decision

   The appointed production reviewer can inspect evidence and record findings while clearance is pending, and can request changes or reject when warranted. Findings are not an approval. Approval of the exact production dataset becomes available only after the required recommendation, source admissions, formal authority decisions, activation and full validation pass. A production authorization is separate from article publication or a public invitation.

Disagreement, changes and accountability

Identify the disputed claim and version, provide sources or a reproducible counterexample, and distinguish essential corrections from optional suggestions. Decisions record the actor, scope, evidence and rationale. Request changes or reject when justified; no reviewer must select approval to make progress. Use a new candidate when evidence changes, preserve earlier records, and cite the governing procedure for any appeal or reconsideration. This guide creates no new voting threshold, appointment or ratification.

WHAT COUNTS AS EVIDENCE

The rules behind empirical review

The OAS-1.0 Authoritative Data Constitution establishes the Society's admission standard. The TVX Constitutional Specification CS-1.0 defines the entity, state, property, observation and comparison framework. Read the primary texts alongside the detailed public workflow guide. Publication of a text does not assert that any empirical batch has passed its requirements. Original source files: OAS-1.0 source and CS-1.0 source.

• Genuine observations: preserve original bytes, an exact SHA-256 receipt and the published numeric value, definition, unit, currency, entity, period, revision and release evidence. A simulation, estimate or proxy must not be relabelled as an observation.
• Explicit admission: provider reputation, discovery, retrieval, qualification and admission are separate. Primary and harmonized sources still require review. Conditional or exceptional source classes need their additional justification; unverified sources remain inadmissible.
• Lineage and independence: a republished or renamed series is not an independent new fact. Preserve the original producer and information root. Provider IDs alone do not establish institutional independence.
• Comparable quantities: the same label does not prove matched quality, geography, eligible population or economic scope. Explain definitions and denominators. A quarterly series does not become annual merely by changing a label.
• Units and normalization: document supported physical or legal unit conversions with retained evidence. C1 purchasing, C2 productive, C3 external sustainability and C4 reserve settlement capacities follow the approved exact construction. Normalization is computed over the specified complete contemporaneous common domain; applicants cannot choose a preferred national or commodity anchor or manually supply the resulting factors.
• Missingness: missing, unresolved or insufficient evidence remains a blocker. Do not substitute zero, a convenient constant or an unreviewed model. Source extraction equality proves the number came from retained bytes; reviewers must still establish its economic meaning.
• Record integrity: corrected facts, provider metadata and candidate datasets use new versions. Submissions, admission decisions and formal approvals are retained; changes in eligibility trigger validation again.

For illustration, the submitted TVX-2.6 packet retains 19 missing or insufficient observations. It cannot be cleared by a general recommendation or an administrator's override. Those facts must be supplied, independently admitted and validated in a complete new candidate. This is a version-specific example, not a live count for all future work.

THE SCHOLARLY PUBLICATION ROUTE

Journal sections and submission stages

The OpenForex Society Journal welcomes rigorous work and critical or comparative analysis within its scope. Choose the appropriate section in the journal submission wizard. Do not send a manuscript through the Society's initial-request form.

1. Prepare and submit

   Read author guidelines, register or sign in, choose the section, and provide title, abstract, author affiliations, keywords, references, conflicts, funding and a data-availability statement. Submit manuscript and supporting files through the journal. Keep the title page separate and anonymize the review manuscript and file properties.

2. Editorial screening and reviewer invitation

   The editor checks scope, rights, evidence and anonymity, then selects qualified reviewers and checks conflicts. The configured research process is double-anonymous. Reviewers should accept only work within their competence and available time. Invitation and report targets are communicated in the assignment; current default targets are two weeks to respond and four weeks for a report, not guaranteed turnaround.

3. Review, decision and revision

   Reviewers assess the question, methods, source provenance, statistical reasoning, references, reproducibility and limitations. Send constructive comments to the author and confidential concerns to the editor. The editor may decline, request revisions or accept. Authors respond point by point and upload revised files to their existing submission and review round.

4. Copyediting, production and publication

   Accepted work proceeds through copyediting, author queries, proofs, accessible galleys, metadata and agreed copyright/reuse terms. Editors schedule and publish approved articles. Uploading, a review recommendation or acceptance alone does not publish a paper. Journal publication does not admit a Society dataset or enable QASH production.

5. Corrections and post-publication correspondence

   Use the existing manuscript discussion for private editorial correspondence and revision requests. For a published correction, identify the article and evidence and contact the editorial office or submit the appropriate correspondence. Preserve dated explanations and links to affected versions.

Journal review files and editorial decisions stay in the journal. Applications for journal roles can be screened through this participation desk and referred to authorized editorial staff; journal appointments and permissions remain in the editorial system. No special issue, deadline, fee, indexing acceptance or publication guarantee is created by a general call.

OPEN INVITATIONS

Calls for submissions and participation

Read the required material and choose the correct stage. Unless a call states a deadline, it is a rolling invitation. Calls can be updated or closed by authorized staff. A deadline passes in UTC. Private revisions and proofs requested by an editor or standards reviewer belong in their assigned workspace.

A PRIVATE FIRST STEP

Submit an application or initial standards request

This form records an initial offer, proposal or role application for Society screening. Full source-file intake follows through an assigned evidence workspace. Journal manuscripts and manuscript revisions go through the journal.

Track your private request

Open your saved private tracking link to see receipt, screening and any explanation or requested changes. If you lose it, contact the relevant office with your request reference. Do not send passwords or authenticator codes.

Participation privacy, conduct and confidentiality

Names, contact details, expertise, declared interests, evidence links and request history are stored privately for screening and accountability. Authorized Society administrators can inspect this intake; journal-related requests may be handed to authorized editorial staff. Applications and private notes are not published on the calls board. Contact details are supplied by applicants and must be independently verified before an appointment.

Only someone holding your private tracking link can see the corresponding application and applicant-visible feedback through the tracking form. Internal screening notes are excluded. Do not supply passwords, authenticator keys, identification documents, private manuscripts or another person's confidential information here. Use public references you have the right to share. The form records no appointment and sends no unsolicited invitation.

Unpublished manuscripts and assigned review material must stay confidential. Disclose relevant financial, institutional, employment, collaboration and prior-preparation relationships before accepting work; seek reassignment when independence cannot be established. Funding or enthusiasm for a conclusion does not purchase an outcome. Raise suspected fabrication, unattributed reuse or unreliable references with evidence to the responsible authority or editor.

Requests and decisions are kept as accountable records. Corrections and revisions are linked rather than silently replacing submitted evidence. Ask standards@openforex.io about Society intake or editorial@openforex.io about journal matters. Journal account and manuscript processing follow the journal privacy statement.

Guide updated 19 October 2026. It describes the implemented workflow and does not replace the retained constitutions, an appointment record, or a formal standards or editorial decision.