I am trying to improve the discipline of my strategy research process and would appreciate insight from those with experience in systematic/quant research. Current workflow I am testing: Formulate a clear hypothesis Conduct the research (features, labeling, validation, costs) Fully document methods, assumptions, and results Subject the work to critical review before any development Only promote ideas that survive review into implementation and paper trading Archive failed ideas with the reasons they were rejected My main questions: • How do professional or experienced independent researchers typically handle the “review” stage before committing resources to coding and forward testing? • Are there specific criteria or checks that are commonly used to decide whether a piece of research is robust enough to proceed? • How formal or informal is this review process in practice (solo researchers vs small teams)? I am particularly interested in practical filters that help reduce the number of strategies that look acceptable in isolation but fail under stronger scrutiny.