Your votes matter.

PoTS Stream scores use a transparent, weighted formula.
Every upvote and downvote shapes what the community sees first.

Join us

Help us shape how PoTS research is discovered.

Subscribe for updates

How it works

A weighted composite score

Votes

Community upvotes and downvotes are normalized with an S curve. More net votes pushes the score higher, but the curve prevents extreme popularity from dominating.

Curator

Community expert assessment across study design, usefulness, methodology, and conflicts of interest. Averaged and normalized into the composite score.

Recency

Newer publications score higher. Logarithmic decay is applied so important studies from years ago aren't penalized too much. Complemented by the citation score component.

Citations

Articles with more citations score higher. We use a log scale so highly cited papers don't completely overshadow newer work.

Methodology changes are logged publicly in the audit trail below. Weights are redistributed automatically when a dimension has no data (e.g., no curator assessments yet).

What's next

In the future we're excited to explore anything we can identify that will help with research discovery and awareness.

  • Community curator reviews (join us!)
  • User profiles, reviews, custom tags and bookmarks
  • Custom email alerts and summaries
  • And more...
If you have ideas, we'd love to hear them.

Subscribe for updates

Audit trail

Effective date Change note Weights
2026-08-04 15:29 Switch to linear decay over 75 years for recency scoring curator 0.10, votes 0.80, recency 0.05, citations 0.05
2026-07-14 20:12 Give more trust to the users. curator 0.10, votes 0.80, recency 0.05, citations 0.05
1970-01-01 00:00 Default scoring configuration curator 0.40, votes 0.25, recency 0.20, citations 0.15