Review AI-generated documents, spreadsheets, and slide decks in biology and environmental science, grading them against domain rubrics for factual accuracy and professional rigor. Work is remote and hourly, with observed rates in the $80–120/hr range depending on credentials and task type.
Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.
What the work involves
You receive artifacts an AI model produced in response to a realistic professional brief — a wetland delineation summary, a species inventory workbook, an EIA chapter, a client-facing slide deck on carbon accounting or habitat restoration. Your job is to read them the way a senior reviewer would: check whether the taxonomy, units, sampling logic, regulatory citations, and statistical claims hold up; flag fabricated references and quietly wrong numbers; and judge whether the deck or spreadsheet would actually survive being sent to a regulator or a client. Scoring happens against a rubric, but the value you add is the written justification — specific, structured, and traceable to a defect rather than a general impression.
What the platform screens for
Verifiable depth. Expect follow-ups on your stated specialty — methods you've run, standards you work under, what you'd expect a field dataset to look like. Vague answers stall the screen.
Evaluation judgment. Can you distinguish a plausible-sounding error from a genuine one, and rank severity when a document has both a citation problem and a formatting problem?
Artifact literacy. Slides and spreadsheets matter here. Reviewers who can only assess prose tend to miss chart mislabeling, broken formulas, and figure-caption mismatches.
Writing. Feedback must be legible to a non-specialist reader without losing technical precision.
Logistics
Fully remote and asynchronous. Work arrives in batches, so volume fluctuates — some weeks offer 10–20 hours, others little. Most contributors treat this as a supplement to existing practice or research work rather than a primary load. You'll need reliable access to Google Workspace and Microsoft Office, and comfort working inside a review tool alongside the artifact. Pay is hourly against logged review time; the $80–120/hr band reflects observed rates and is not guaranteed for any individual engagement.
What they look for
5+ years professional experience in biology or environmental science
Ability to fact-check technical claims, citations, and quantitative methods
High proficiency in Google Slides / PowerPoint, Sheets / Excel, and Docs
Clear structured written English at a professional level
Master's degree or higher in a life or environmental science (preferred)
Prior peer review, QA, or technical editing experience (preferred)
Included with this listing
Interview prep — 10 questions
Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.
Anchor the answer in one specific case from your own work. Screeners score concrete detail and structure, not confidence.
Detailed coaching has not been generated for this listing yet — the questions themselves are still the ones its screening draws on.