WOW! Couldn’t have wished for a better response! If you haven’t tried @qedscience.bsky.social yet, it works on pretty much anything you’re writing in biology and medicine.

Just received my mouse(fly)pad from @qedscience.bsky.social

New preprint! We show that conjugation accelerates the segregation of #plasmid alleles -> horizontal transfer is a route for allele segregation in MGE evolution. Led by Lisa Hartmann, with @mariosanter.bsky.social &Nils Hülter. Naturally, reviewed by @qedscience.bsky.social! doi.org/10.64898/202...

Reviewers 5 months after the deadline when the editor sends urgent reminders to submit their reports

Humanity is notorious for leaving problems for the next generations, but animals reveal the biology: C. elegans develop germline tumors if THEIR GRAND GRANDPARENTS’ cells fail to clear garbage from their body cavity… What the hell, you ask? Read our new preprint! 👇 www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...

"AI is here to stay...From writing to reviewing...It is essential to engage with it [&] develop use cases that benefit the community...The clear winning option is use of AI review by authors prior to submission.” link.springer.com/article/10.1... via @tlemberger.bsky.social @odedrechavi.bsky.social

This is such a great and timely survey on author's perception of peer review vs AI scientific review. A collaboration between @reviewcommons.org and @qedscience.bsky.social. The geek in me would have liked to see the distributions in the response scores ;). link.springer.com/article/10.1...

It’s finally out! Together with @embopress.org and @reviewcommons.org, we conducted a structured side-by-side comparison of human peer review and our AI scientific review (see thread 👇👇👇🔥).

Our joint study with EMBO is just out! We are proud to be at the forefront of this sea change. AI will reinforce the central role of scientists in this new era. Strong science should be seen! @embo.org @reviewcommons.org @tlemberger.bsky.social link.springer.com/article/10.1...

I just tried out Q.E.D. @qedscience.bsky.social on our recent preprint. I'm impressed. It's a little bit pedantic, but overall it identified the keys advances and limitations of the work and pointed me to some missed citations. I'm impressed!

Just had a very nice online meet up with a bunch of hardcore users of @qedscience.bsky.social. It's amazing to have this support from the scientific community, to hear your ideas for new features & directions, and to learn how to improve based on your feedback - thank you! 🤟🍻

I just tested q.e.d for a grant proposal and am blown away. The suggested changes are on the point and will surely help my proposal. This is amazing! @odedrechavi.bsky.social Can't wait to submit my next paper before preprint to q.e.d! 🧪

Für life sciences gibt es den Tool von @qedscience.bsky.social . Es funktioniert eigentlich super: man erhält ein strukturiertes und sehr relevantes Feedback. Ich verstehe also die ganze Aufregung nicht: KI-Tools werden immer besser und als Hilfsmittel für die Begutachtung bereits sehr hilfreich.

Science doesn’t actually run on truth – it runs on validity. In our latest blog post we explore why science advances not by proving absolute truths, but by continuously evaluating how valid a claim is within a given paradigm. qedscience.com/blog/why-we-... @odedrechavi.bsky.social

2025 was a rough year for science worldwide (and in general), but, despite everything, I am optimistic. Why? Because of @qedscience.bsky.social! This crazy endeavour actually has a chance of changing how academia works.. 👇

And here's the report @qedscience.bsky.social generated for our new paper, summarizing what's new and what was already known before. I'm planning to submit q.e.d's reports as cover letters together with my pre-prints from now on (and so should you!)

Our🥶COOLNESS paper to date is finally published! Ice cold and lithium dramatically delay forgetting (extend memory) in C. elegans. Why? read all about it! 👇 rdcu.be/eVhn2

An article about @qedscience.bsky.social this time in @lemonde.fr 🍷 Would you prefer to get feedback on your paper in French? Lots of scientists in France are q.e.ding❤️https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2025/12/10/l-evaluation-des-articles-scientifiques-bouleversee-par-l-ia_6656706_1650684.html

Thank you @lemonde.fr! If you’re a French scientist, you should try qed. Also if you’re not. www.lemonde.fr/sciences/art...

“qed analyzes manuscripts with remarkable precision, depth and logic”. A great write-up on @qedscience.bsky.social by Jörg Klug in @laborjournal.bsky.social. Enthusiastic user feedback + thoughtful critique = the conversation science needs around AI and review. laborjournal.de/rubric/hinte...

I liked this thoughtful article about q.e.d‘s AI Review and our collaboration with @openrxiv.bsky.social (biorxiv) in @nature.com. Yes, AI is here to stay and we need to get ready. One important note that was missing in this piece: we intentionally made qed an authors-centric tool (see more below) 👇

Interesting fact: even though our core focus is currently biological research papers, ~15% of total uploads are of clinical papers, and many upload grants… even though we haven’t officially dealt with those (yet 😉). Which areas do you think we should go into next?

Recently tried it on our published paper (neuroscience, biological psychiatry field, so out of the main @qedscience.bsky.social domain). But still, very impressed with the identified gaps and identified novelty in the field! Can we re-use/paraphrase some of the novelty findings? Highly recommend!

Let us know!

Why it's encouraged to run your paper in @qedscience.bsky.social as soon as possible

Check it out!

ai peer review: "The problem is that the fun ends when you need to publish it and go through the [review] process.” @OdedRechavi @qedscience.bsky.social www.the-scientist.com/q-e-d-an-ai-...

Most setbacks (logic gaps, novelty confusion, unsupported conclusions) are preventable. That’s what the @lifescienceeditors.bsky.social x @qedscience.bsky.social pilot is for. Impact, not (necessarily 😉) impact factor. Please reach out! We'd love to help! www.lifescienceeditors.com/qed-pilot/

Tried @qedscience.bsky.social by running our published paper through it. It identified 2 issues unknown to us. Amazing work, Dr. @odedrechavi.bsky.social and team. 👌👌👌

The support from @embopress.org and @reviewcommons.org means a lot! Thank you @tlemberger.bsky.social ! @qedscience.bsky.social

Enabling options for review: bioRxiv authors now have the option to send their preprints directly to @qedscience.bsky.social , an authors-centered AI review platform, for automated feedback on their paper. openrxiv.org/enabling-rev... #OpenScience #Preprints #openrxiv #qedscience #biorxiv

Excited to launch an openRxiv partnership with the scientist-run AI review service qed (@qedscience.bsky.social), the brainchild of @odedrechavi.bsky.social 1/n openrxiv.org/enabling-rev...

IT'S HAPPENING! 💥 I'm psyched to launch the collaboration between @qedscience.bsky.social & @openrxiv.bsky.social @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social! Preprint + q.e.d = your science is out there, and anyone can appreciate it. Let's care about making discoveries, and not on “getting published” (1/3) 👇

Let's go! Super excited to partner with @richardsever.bsky.social and the fantastic @openrxiv.bsky.social team - Preprints have been the best thing that happened to science publishing during my lifetime, and we're happy @qedscience.bsky.social can make preprints do more 👊

We’re thrilled to share that ‪@openrxiv.bsky.social‬ and @biorxiv-medrxiv.bsky.social now integrate @qedscience.bsky.social. This collaboration reflects a shared effort to make scientific evaluation more transparent and constructive.

Stay tuned for an important update later today! @qedscience.bsky.social

More exciting news from qed next week!

Thank you @richardsever.bsky.social

The Manuscript Adviser is more specific and currently provides feedback on tittle, abstract, missing references and overstated claims. The latter being the most interesting aspect so far. Similar to the gaps idea in www.qedscience.com but qed was much stronger on the one example I tested both on

With the Reading Assistant I tried to get it to act as reviewer and got a response that makes it look like they are trying their best to avoid this use case.

🧪🧠 Experimental results 🥁🥁: we submitted the same #neuroscience paper twice to @qedscience.bsky.social loved the concept, organization and text & experiment suggestions. Both reviews incisive, not identical (what does this teach us about LLMs?). Strong A+ @natureportfolio.nature.com @science.org

Have to try this @qedscience.bsky.social AI 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

Unlike the heart attack of getting a “Decision” email, it’s such a good feeling to get a “Your review is ready” email from qed :)

An outage affecting several services on the internet is also impacting qed's platform. We're investigating this now, and will update you when we have more details.

Really amazing initiative from @odedrechavi.bsky.social & Co at @qedscience.bsky.social: an AI tool to critically evaluate your work & get constructive feedback to help you assess/improve it. Read the whole 🧵fo details & website link 👏👍👇

This is amazing and moves scientific publishing into the modern age in a MAJOR way. @qedscience.bsky.social by @odedrechavi.bsky.social and team, and planyourscience.com by @kordinglab.bsky.social, are my gamechanging life-hack recommendations for all scientists!

Would recommend. Have been testing early versions and it has been very helpful!

I have evaluated a few papers with #QEDscience already. It’s extraordinarily useful, helps you to tighten up weak areas in papers before submission. It should be part of everyone’s publishing workflow. @qedscience.bsky.social

BIG ANNOUNCEMENT📣: I haven’t been this excited to be part of something new in 15 years… Thrilled to reveal the passion project I’ve been working on for the past year and a half!🙀🥳 (thread 👇)