English source edition notice This language route is live for parity and navigation, but it still mirrors the English source edition and is not yet a reviewed translation.

Transparency and standards

Research Standards

Research standards should show how OZJF decides what counts as strong evidence and how it separates the record from the argument built on top of it.

Research standards

OZJF’s research pages should be inspectable. That means readers should be able to tell what is a primary source, what is a secondary interpretation, what is a dated event reference, and where the page is making an inference rather than simply reporting the record.

Source hierarchy

Tier A: official filings, treaty texts, statutes, court rulings, government databases, original polling methodology, and original NGO or institutional reports
Tier B: academically serious secondary analysis, CRS, FRUS, Office of the Historian, and major research institutes
Tier C: reputable news for dated events, updates, or cases where no primary source is available

Method and reproducibility

Readers should be able to follow the sourcing logic of a page without trusting OZJF by default. Quantitative claims should have exact dates and sources. High-risk claims should rely on Tier A or Tier B support whenever possible. Polling claims should not be detached from questionnaire wording, sample frame, or field date.

Public reference points

The AAPOR Transparency Initiative and the SPJ Code of Ethics are useful external anchors for transparency and source discipline. They do not replace OZJF’s own judgment, but they provide a recognizable rigor baseline.