There are two common use cases for awarding badges: upon publication and post publication. Journals are likely to employ upon publication review. Emerging publishing platforms and review services might pursue a post publication review process. The following are suggestions for incorporating badge review into the workflow. Certifying organizations may adapt these procedures based on their own needs and idiosyncratic workflows. **Upon publication badge review** Authors may apply for one or more badges at initial submission of a manuscript for review or when submitting the final version following acceptance. Blended models are possible, such as confirming intent to apply for badges during initial submission and then making materials available, providing disclosure, and conducting badge review after acceptance. Illustrative steps: 1. During manuscript submission, authors review badge criteria to determine whether they wish to apply. 2. Authors identify whether they will apply for one or more badges for each study appearing in the manuscript. 3. For each badge selected, authors complete the disclosure items and are informed whether the journal uses a disclosure or peer review for verification. See a disclosure statement template [here][1]. 4. If badge criteria cannot be met, authors have opportunity to provide text to appear in place of the badge, such as “For protection of human participant privacy, the University’s Data Access Committee must review all data access requests. All reasonable data requests from qualified researchers are granted. Contact your university's data access committee to initiate data request process.” 5. If the article, and badges, are accepted, then the disclosures and badges are printed in the journal article - see [Incorporating Badge Visualization into Publications.][2] **Post publication badge review** It is possible to award badges to already published articles. There are several approaches. Feasibility will vary across certifying organizations: - *Published Addendum*: Most journals have procedures for submitting post-publication rectifications or errata. A “Badge Addendum” category could be created. In its simplest version, this addendum would include the disclosure items for each badge. Peer review could be incorporated for verification. - *Online Addendum*: Many infrastructures allow for moderated or reviewed peer commentaries on published articles. The addendum procedure could be implemented as a special commentary or article level metric at the publisher’s website or at an independent outlet. - *Online Community Review*: Authors’ disclosures could be made available to invited or volunteer community members for verification. Badges could be awarded (and revoked) based on community review. Unless the process is actively managed by editors, community reviewers should be identified publicly for accountability. This model fits easily with post-publication review of article content. Reviewers comment on the availability and usability of public materials, data, and registrations. - *Accreditation Body*: An accreditation body (or bodies) could form and provide certification services. Authors would be awarded badges by the accreditation body by requesting to be reviewed. The accreditation body could be endorsed by journals, effectively outsourcing the reviewing responsibility. Or, the accreditation body could administer badges by linking to the citation independently of the journal. Such a body does not yet exist. [1]: https://osf.io/5fndw/ "disclosure statement template" [2]: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki/4.%20Incorporating%20Badge%20Visualization%20into%20Publications/