How researcher review works

Skills are reviewed before a badge appears

Applying and receiving a BTLGen skills review are free. This is participation in an independent research community. BTLGen assesses relevant research ability, evidence handling and privacy decisions; it does not hire the applicant or award another organization’s credential.

A badge identifies the reviewed scope and expiry date. It does not guarantee a result, a reunion or expertise in every specialty, and it does not imply a criminal background check was performed. The process below establishes how applicants demonstrate the research skills they want to offer here.

1. Your private application

Choose whether you intend to volunteer, offer professional services or participate in both tracks. Give your full name privately and a separate listing name. Describe your regions, communities, languages, specialties, experience, training and any current credentials you claim. Include two authorized references or explain why an alternative is needed.

Submit two original, anonymized research samples: one involving identity or a relationship, and one in your proposed specialty. Each sample should state the question, identify the sources with useful citations, explain the reasoning, address contradictory evidence, acknowledge limits and propose next steps. Remove living-person, client and genetic identifiers. Do not upload government IDs, passwords or private account access links.

Your application is visible only to authorized people handling review, including specifically assigned reviewers. Applying does not create a listing, grant a badge or give you access to a member’s research.

2. Identity, credentials and references

BTLGen reviews evidence of your identity privately and records the result of the check. The application text is not the place to submit copies of identity documents or identification numbers. If a separate identity check is needed, the review team must explain the appropriate private process.

Claimed current credentials are checked with their issuing organizations and recorded separately from BTLGen’s own review. A course certificate, association membership or profile screenshot alone does not establish a current credential or the competence needed for a case.

References are contacted or assessed with appropriate permission. Reviewers consider the applicant’s actual work, relevant abilities, authorship and conduct rather than treating a recommendation as a substitute for evidence.

3. Research samples and demonstrated scope

Reviewers examine how the applicant selected and interpreted sources, distinguished similar people, supported relationships and dealt with conflicting information. A well-explained unresolved question can demonstrate sound research; guessing a convenient answer cannot.

The proposed scope must match the work demonstrated. Expertise in one region or record type does not automatically establish ability in another language, community, legal system or DNA problem. A reviewer can request an additional sample or narrow the proposed scope.

4. A practical case and discussion of the method

Qualified reviewers assess a controlled fictional or properly de-identified case. The applicant explains a plan, appropriate source choices, a relevant contradiction, possible alternative conclusions and what further evidence would change the answer.

The method discussion helps check that the applicant understands and produced the work. Any material use of AI or another tool must be disclosed; generated citations and claims must be verified against actual sources. Tool output alone is not proof of competence.

5. Two separate human assessments

Two different reviewers with relevant demonstrated abilities evaluate the application independently. They record their qualification for the assigned scope, their scores and reasoning, the practical-case and discussion result, and their ethics decision.

An applicant cannot review or approve their own application. A reviewer must disclose conflicts and step aside where impartial review is not possible. Friendship, membership level, an advertising payment or a donation cannot replace assessment or buy a badge.

Both assessments must pass the published rubric below. Every mandatory ethics and method check must pass, and a critical privacy or integrity failure prevents approval even if the numerical total is high.

6. Additional review for DNA research

DNA work requires two passing DNA assessments in addition to the applicable records research review. The module covers relationship alternatives, misleading match trees, documentary support, uncertainty, and issues such as endogamy or pedigree collapse when they are relevant.

Reviewers assess whether the applicant distinguishes a possible relationship from a supported one and understands consent boundaries. Permission to view results is separate from permission to upload, download, share or contact another person. A records-only badge does not authorize DNA cases.

7. A decision, a defined scope and renewal

Approval follows the identity and reference checks and two passing independent assessments. A reviewed profile records the actual approved scope, separate DNA status and expiry date. Any confirmed outside credential remains distinct from the BTLGen review.

BTLGen review expires after 12 months. A new specialty needs additional relevant work review. A profile whose review has expired or been suspended cannot be used for new matching or authorized helper access.

An application may be returned for more information or declined with review feedback. The applicant can respond through the allowed revision process. A complaint can lead to a suspension while the relevant conduct or scope is considered.

8. Your listing and each separate case

An approved helper chooses whether their listing name and reviewed specialties appear to signed-in members. Professionals have a separate free service-listing page with an additional explicit choice before anything is shown publicly. Application samples, references, legal names and contact details are not copied into a public advertisement.

For each case, the member chooses a currently eligible helper. Both parties customize and sign the NDA and the research agreement. The member’s private research remains unavailable to the helper until both current documents have the required signatures.

Changed terms require new signatures. DNA access and outreach require specific agreed permission. The member may pause future helper access or close the case. Approval does not promise a case assignment or a successful discovery.

The published assessment rubric

Each reviewer’s passing assessment requires at least 85 points out of 100, at least 70% of the available points in every category, all mandatory ethics and method checks passed, and no critical privacy or integrity failure. DNA approval also requires the additional DNA assessment to pass for both reviewers.

This rubric belongs to BTLGen’s independent review process. It is not an examination administered by another credentialing organization.

Questions, concerns and appeals

Use private member support with your case or application reference to ask a question, respond to requested information or raise a concern. Describe the issue clearly and share sensitive supporting material only through an appropriately authorized private process.

A complaint should be assessed by someone who was not involved in the concern. An appeal should be handled by a different reviewer. Do not post private family evidence, research samples, genetic information or another person’s identifying details publicly to support a complaint.

BTLGen is a place for people to connect and find genealogy help. Search Angels and research professionals who participate here are independent volunteers or service providers, not BTLGen employees. Any research arrangement is made directly between the member and the helper. Joining or receiving a BTLGen review badge does not create employment, authorize someone to act for BTLGen, or guarantee a result.