Reviewer Guidelines
Standards and expectations for reviewing exercises in the Open Exercise Database. Validation confirms a qualified professional has reviewed the entry for clarity and safety. It does not constitute medical advice.
Purpose of review
Professional review ensures every exercise in the database is safe, biomechanically sound, clearly written, structurally consistent, and scientifically neutral.
Five review dimensions
Reviewers assess exercises across these areas.
Safety & biomechanics
No unsafe joint positions
Alignment cues promote neutral posture
No extreme angles without context
Equipment use is appropriate
Risky movements include cautions
Appropriate for general populations
Clarity of instructions
Sequential and logically ordered
Free of ambiguity and contradictions
Describes posture, direction, control
Starting position clearly stated
Movement execution described
End position or return phase included
Structural consistency
Categories match movement type
Body parts match muscle involvement
Equipment matches instructions
Metrics appropriate for exercise
Variations and relationships consistent
No irrelevant fields
Scientific neutrality
No exaggerated claims
No medical promises
No marketing language
No unsupported physiological claims
No health outcome guarantees
Tone must remain neutral and educational.
Duplication & relationships
Check if exercise already exists
Identify if it's a variation
Link via variation_of, progression_of, etc.
Mark obvious duplicates
Link to the canonical entry when marking duplicates.
Review outcomes
Each decision must include brief review notes.
Approve
Meets safety, clarity, and structural standards.
Request changes
Revisions needed. Provide clear, constructive guidance.
Reject
Unsafe, misleading, structurally inappropriate, or out of scope.
Mark as duplicate
Substantially overlaps with an existing validated exercise.
Writing review notes
Notes should be:
Avoid:
Good example
“Instructions should clarify knee alignment during the descent phase.”
Poor example
“This is badly written.”
Reviewer conduct
Maintain professional tone
Base decisions on movement science
Avoid discrimination or bias
Respect contributors
The review process is collaborative, not adversarial.
Conflict of interest
Don't review exercises you submitted
Don't review content tied to commercial products
Disclose potential conflicts
Scope of validation
Validation confirms
Exercise description is safe and clear
Structural fields are appropriate
Movement is biomechanically reasonable
Validation does not confirm
Clinical suitability for all individuals
Medical effectiveness
Superiority over other exercises