Publication Roadmap

Superseded — February 2026 snapshot, not updated
These readiness scores are a February 2026 snapshot, written before the audit, and have not been updated. Several of the listed papers' central claims have since failed or been identified as known physics. “Dark Matter as Incomplete Decoherence” is badged Failed as a mechanism, and the framework's own cosmology needs cold dark matter. The SPARC galaxy fits that work are MOND's simple μ (Reparametrization), and the framework's own γ = 2 loses. The ALFALFA-SDSS scatter test was never run as registered. The σint test is underpowered as registered. The chemistry “γ framework” mostly restates the Debye model. The consciousness threshold is unsupported and untested. A score of 0.88 or 0.95 here is not a current assessment. For that, see Honest Assessment and For Researchers, which lists the results a referee might still find worth reading. No manuscript has been submitted.

Synchronism tracks potential publications with readiness scores and circularity percentages. Higher readiness means closer to submission. Lower circularity means more genuinely novel content.

Cosmology / Astrophysics

ALFALFA-SDSS TFR Scatter Reduction

0.97
Novelty: 51% scatter improvementCircularity: 8.8%

CDM vs MOND Discrimination (σ_int)

0.95
Novelty: σ_int = 0.086 dex (test underpowered as registered)Circularity: 15%

SPARC Capstone (175 galaxies)

0.92
Novelty: Unified rotation curve frameworkCircularity: 25%

Dark Matter as Incomplete Decoherence

0.88
Novelty: Paradigm reframeCircularity: 40%

Wide Binary Density Prediction

0.60
Novelty: Novel testable predictionCircularity: 5%

Chemistry / Materials

γ Framework: 1,703 Phenomena

0.75
Novelty: Unified property scalingCircularity: 60%

η Pair-Breaking as Design Target

0.65
Novelty: Materials optimizationCircularity: 80%

Channel Independence Discovery

0.50
Novelty: γ_phonon ⊥ γ_spin findingCircularity: 10%

Consciousness / Philosophy

Consciousness Threshold (C ≈ 0.50)

0.60
Novelty: 8-way convergenceCircularity: 30%

34 Falsifiable Predictions

0.55
Novelty: EEG protocols definedCircularity: 15%

Methodology

A2ACW Protocol

0.70
Novelty: AI-AI adversarial collaborationCircularity: 0%

Autonomous Research Report

0.65
Novelty: 3,308 sessions methodologyCircularity: 0%

What the Snapshot Got Wrong

Until 2026-09-22 this section said that the highest-readiness papers (ALFALFA-SDSS, CDM discrimination) had the lowest circularity, and it used to add that “the empirical results stand regardless of whether Synchronism's theoretical framework is correct.” That has not held up. The ALFALFA-SDSS test was never run as registered, and the σint result depends on the velocity definition by up to ~3×. The results that did survive as framework-independent are negative ones, like the local-density no-go and density-keyed unidentifiability. They are listed on For Researchers. Open question: which of those is worth writing up, and for whom?

Submission Status

No manuscripts have been submitted externally. The roadmap represents internal readiness assessment. External peer review will be the real test.

Status Dashboard →

Related Concepts

The Publisher TrackAutomated publication readiness scoringStatus DashboardLive tracking of prediction outcomes