Toward a Reliability Scale for Assessing Reports of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) observations have been reported from ancient times to today, but their true nature remains uncertain. In this paper we propose a rating scale designed to separate “signal” from “noise” in assessing UAP sighting reports. Our intention is that this will help professionals and laypeople alike distinguish cases that warrant further investigation from easily explainable false alarms. We categorize UAP sighting reports according to the quality of their evidence, considering such factors as number of observers, amount and quality of supporting evidence, especially physical evidence, and perhaps most importantly, whether UAP witnesses have made some effort to find an ordinary explanation for what they saw or experienced and whether the evidence has been subject to expert analysis.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Universe
Published
2025-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/universe11100326
Primary Topic
Risk Perception and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Toward a Reliability Scale for Assessing Reports of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)

Dirk Schulze‐Makuch, Tony Reichhardt
Universe
Risk Perception and Management
article

Toward a Reliability Scale for Assessing Reports of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)

Dirk Schulze‐Makuch, Tony Reichhardt
article en

Abstract

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) observations have been reported from ancient times to today, but their true nature remains uncertain. In this paper we propose a rating scale designed to separate “signal” from “noise” in assessing UAP sighting reports. Our intention is that this will help professionals and laypeople alike distinguish cases that warrant further investigation from easily explainable false alarms. We categorize UAP sighting reports according to the quality of their evidence, considering such factors as number of observers, amount and quality of supporting evidence, especially physical evidence, and perhaps most importantly, whether UAP witnesses have made some effort to find an ordinary explanation for what they saw or experienced and whether the evidence has been subject to expert analysis.

UniverseVol. 11(10)
Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (DE), Fredericksburg Independent School District (US), GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences (DE), Technische Universität Berlin (DE), Washington State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Risk Perception and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Toward a Reliability Scale for Assessing Reports of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) — Dirk Schulze‐Makuch, Tony Reichhardt · Universe (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS