Physics Expert (Postdoc / Junior professor)

What you'll do

Where micro1's PhD / Postdoc listing is for solvers, this one is for reviewers. You read physics solutions, derivations and theoretical arguments (produced by researchers or by AI) and decide what is wrong with them, how badly, and why.

The ad describes the job closely:

• Find errors, unjustified steps, missing assumptions, dimensional inconsistencies and weak logic or method
• Separate substantive scientific problems from stylistic or cosmetic ones
• Explain the reasoning behind each flaw so the fix is actionable
• Notice when correct reasoning could be tightened, and suggest how
• Verify or counter-check claims independently in LaTeX, SymPy, Python and Jupyter
• Deliver structured feedback that supports iterative improvement

The substantive-versus-cosmetic distinction is the skill being hired. Anyone can mark a solution down; the value is in saying "this sign error propagates and changes the answer" versus "this notation is unusual but fine", and being calibrated about it every time.

Who fits

• A physics PhD with an active independent research record in a specialised subfield (high energy or mathematical physics, biophysics or statistical physics, condensed matter, AMO and quantum optics, gravitation and cosmology, quantum information, or optical materials)
• Experience as a postdoc, research fellow, junior or assistant professor, or senior research scientist
• Recent publications (roughly the last five years) with arXiv or DOI links
• Advanced LaTeX, SymPy, Python and Jupyter
• Demonstrated reviewing experience: peer review, supervision, dissertation committees or group seminars
• Excellent written feedback skills, and reliable fast internet and a suitable computer

Refereeing is the most directly transferable experience, and the ad says so.

Where it is open

The location reads "Remote (US, Canada, UK focused)". That is a stated focus rather than a hard restriction, so we have not set a country list. Applicants elsewhere can apply, but expect the focus to count.

What it pays

$80–150/hour, micro1's published band. That sits below the $100–200 solver listing, which is unusual: on many projects reviewers earn more than solvers. No compensation structure, weekly hours or duration is stated.

Worth knowing

Good:

• 30 openings, a large intake for expert-tier physics
• Rewards refereeing and supervision experience directly
• Broad: any of the listed subfields qualifies
• No AI experience needed

Less good:

• Postdoc-level seniority and recent publications required; current PhD students are not the target here
• Pays less than the solver listing despite the higher seniority bar
• US, Canada and UK focus may disadvantage applicants elsewhere
• No hours, duration or pay structure published
• Posted two months ago; check it is still open
• Contractor engagement: no benefits, no notice period, your own tax to manage

About this listing

Posted by micro1 on its own jobs portal and read on 24 September 2026. The band, the 30 openings, the location focus and the qualifications are from the listing; the comparison with the solver listing is ours, from micro1's published figures. See micro1.