Model of Scientific Knowledge. Part III. Three-Axis Evaluation and the Architectural Responsibility of Journals

Part I of this series established a demarcation criterion: scientific knowledge is generated by a reflexive act (changing the agent's subjective models ), is logically falsifiable, and alters the space of possibilities . Part II presented a process model of scientific creativity (field, domain, barriers). This third part moves from demarcation to evaluation–not “is it scientific?” but “what is the quality of knowledge already recognized as scientific?” A three-axis evaluation system is introduced: the philosophical axis (meanings, methodology, reflexive depth), the mathematical axis (logical consistency, formal rigor), and the empirical axis (correspondence to data, reproducibility). It is shown that evaluation has a dual architectural function: falsification (detecting errors) and verification (confirming reliability). The reduction of evaluation to the empirical axis–specifically to the dichotomy–destroys its falsifying function, leading to the reproducibility crisis and the imitation of novelty. As a counterbalance, an architectural mechanism of mandatory publication of validated refutations is proposed. It makes journals responsible for the post-publication evaluation of published material and restores the second, falsifying half of evaluation. Necessary and sufficient conditions for improving the quality of scientific knowledge are formulated: the three-axis system provides a multidimensional measure, while the refutation mechanism provides an architecture in which this measure does not degenerate.