SCVS Methodology
Research-informed conference intelligence with explicit evidence boundaries.
1. Purpose and research foundation
SCVS combines structured review of conference information with maintained research records and pattern analysis to support researcher due diligence. The basis of an individual finding must be identifiable; the existence of an internal record is not independent proof.
Researcher and participant submissions can inform investigation where received and appropriately documented. No claim is made that every assessment includes participant testimony, an organizer investigation or expert review.
2. Scope and identity
Identify the exact event edition, domain, organizer claim and assessment date before drawing conclusions. Similar names, acronyms, shared service providers or related domains can refer to different entities. Distinguish an event-specific finding from a network-level research hypothesis.
3. Evidence categories
Assess relevant digital identity, academic governance and review, publication claims, venue and registration terms, and historical or operator signals where sources permit. An assessment should identify which categories were actually covered.
Use the responsible source for the claim: the organizer for its own stated terms, the publisher for publication arrangements, a registry for its own records, and the institution or venue for its own confirmation. A search snippet or another automated report is not a substitute for checking the source.
4. Evidence states
Organizer-stated: the organizer makes the statement. Corroborated: an appropriate separate source supports the specific statement. Conflicting: cited sources disagree on a material point. Not located: not found in the identified sources reviewed. Not assessed: not checked or insufficient access.
Record positive findings as carefully as concerns. Say what was observed before offering interpretation. Source repetition is not necessarily independent confirmation.
5. Patterns, screening records and feedback
Domain structures, recurring claims, content similarity and historical records can help prioritize review. Association alone is not proof of wrongdoing. Aggregator filtering is a discovery-quality choice distinct from an adverse integrity finding.
A user report is an allegation until its relevant claims are substantiated. Preserve provenance, dates, consent or authority, supporting documents, alternative explanations and any organizer response. Do not publish confidential source material or identifying details merely to make a report appear stronger.
6. Scoring and limitations
An issued score must identify its methodology version and explain its meaning and coverage. Do not market an evidence score as a fraud probability or advertise accuracy percentages without suitable validation. Inadequate evidence can require withholding a conclusion.
Collection can fail or omit relevant material. New events and limited online presence are not inherently adverse. Historical records may be outdated; methodology changes can produce different scores without any change in organizer conduct.
7. Review, corrections and independence
Human review is separate from automated processing and should identify the reviewer role, date and scope when it occurs. High-impact public allegations require source validation and appropriate editorial/legal review.
Use the correction route for disputed facts. Relevant commercial relationships, including ScholarVault-organized events, should be disclosed. Proposed publication controls must be implemented and verified before being advertised as established practice.
Contact support · Version 2026-09-19-review