Chemistry Expert (PhD)

$80–90/hrrate as listed

micro1 is contracting chemistry PhDs to write and review advanced chemistry prompts, solutions, and reference answers used to train and evaluate AI models. Work is remote, output-based, and paid per accepted task, with observed rates in the $80–90/hr equivalent range.

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 will spend most of your time producing what the project calls "golden responses" — fully worked, defensible answers to advanced chemistry questions that models are expected to match or be scored against. That means writing out mechanisms step by step, justifying why a reagent or spectroscopic assignment is correct, and flagging where a question is ambiguous or where multiple defensible answers exist. A second stream of work is review: reading model outputs or other contributors' submissions and judging whether the chemistry is actually correct, complete, and consistent with current practice — not just plausible-sounding. Expect to document your reasoning alongside the answer, since the rationale is often as valuable to the customer as the final result.

What the screening looks for

micro1's process is AI-led and moves quickly. The screen is less about AI experience — none is required — and more about whether your chemistry holds up under follow-up questioning. Interviewers typically pick a sub-discipline from your background and push two or three layers deeper: why that mechanism and not the alternative, what the spectrum rules out, what assumption breaks at high concentration. Written clarity matters as much as recall; contributors who can produce a clean, self-contained explanation for a reader who is not in their sub-field tend to pass. Breadth across organic, inorganic, physical, and analytical chemistry is a real advantage, since task queues rarely stay in one lane.

Logistics

Fully remote, asynchronous, contractor engagement — no fixed shifts.
Compensation is output-based: paid per task that meets specification. The $80–90/hr band reflects observed effective rates and is not a guaranteed hourly wage; slower workflows earn less per hour.
A weekly minimum task submission applies, so this is not a role you can pick up once a month.
Roles are typically filled within 48 hours, with first tasks expected 24–48 hours after onboarding.
Occasional remote calibration discussions or workshops with annotation leads and PMs.

What they look for

advanced chemistry knowledge
scientific writing
verbal comms
attention to detail
educational content development

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you hold a PhD in Chemistry, Biochemistry, Materials Science, Chemical Engineering, or another closely related scientific discipline?
PhD in Chemistry or closely related field · required
Have you actively published, taught, conducted research, or produced professional chemistry materials within the past 5 years?
Current expertise in chemistry · required
Are you able to begin submitting tasks within 24–48 hours of completing onboarding?
Availability for immediate start · required
Do you have reliable internet access and a quiet workspace suitable for independent remote work?
Remote work capability · required
Can you commit to completing and submitting a minimum number of tasks per week on a consistent basis?
Willingness to meet weekly submission minimums · required

0 of 5 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Verifying that the PhD has active, current chemistry expertise at publication or equivalent depth, not just a credential from years ago.
A strong answer: Name a specific project with a clear role (lead author, PI, core contributor) completed in the last 5–7 years, describe the chemistry problem or advance it addressed, and point to a measurable outcome (published paper, patent, grant, or recognized body of work in industry or academia).
Where people lose it: Vague reference to 'my PhD work' from a decade ago without naming a project, recent publication, or ongoing expertise in the field—suggests the degree is in the rearview mirror, not active knowledge.