The Particle Data Group keeps a running, subject matter organized summary of the state of the art experimental results for the experimentally measured properties of hadrons and measurements of fundamental physical constants that is updated at least annually. Is there any comparable group that maintains a running, subject matter organized summary of peer reviewed experimental results that have statistically significant deviations from the Standard Model, and their resolutions, if any, in cases where they are superseded by latter evidence? A resource like that would be useful in identifying ongoing anomalies (such as muonic hydrogen nuclear radius size, muon g-2, charged lepton universality violations) and also to serve a snopes-like function to determine if an old anomaly measurement has been resolved or remains outstanding. Short of that, is there a good systemic way to do what in law we call "Shepardizing" to determine if a published conclusion in the past remains accepted or has been criticized or disproven? For example, suppose you were give a few Opera superluminal neutrino papers. Is there some easy way to learn that these findings were later retracted due to an experimental measurement flaw if you didn't know that from living through it? In the opposite but related direction, is there any good subject matter organized index of published, peer reviewed papers that have confirmed Standard Model predictions? This would be a nice resource to be able to direct skeptics to and I would think that they number in the high hundreds or thousands. It would be similar to the PDG or the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics which are also compilations of large volumes of basic physics research, but focused on Standard Model prediction confirmations. For that matter, it would also be nice if there were some sort of index of Standard Model predictions that have been published but not yet tested experimentally as sort of a "to do list". In a similar vein, are their any groups that maintain an up to date annotated summary of the ruled out and still valid parts of the parameter spaces of one or more BSM models (or both) on a similar basis? Every now and then someone publishes a review article, but it seems to be very catch as catch can, and if you don't watch the pre-prints (or track published work) pretty much every few days (let alone for a month or two), you could easily miss some important development on that front without knowing it.