AI missed the dodgy control group. You didn’t. Your review matters.

The current system is gamed, gated, and opaque. Paperstars is built for clarity.

“I liked the paper but the stats were a mess” Heard in a journal club. Add that to the public record and don’t let your valuable discussion just disappear!

You don’t outsource your scientific judgement. So why let AI define the discourse?

Academia rewards volume over value. That’s why we built Paperstars. Review what matters.

Your journal club already does post-publication peer review. Paperstars just makes it visible to others.

AI doesn’t know when something feels off. But you do. Add your review on Paperstars

A better metric starts with action. Review one paper this week on Paperstars

Your journal club isn’t just for discussion. It can shape science. Rate the last paper you read on Paperstars

AI can “summarise” a paper. But it can’t tell you if the stats make sense. You can.

We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing: a 🧵 1/n Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/... Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

A citation doesn’t mean a paper is good. It means it exists. Rate what actually matters on Paperstars

“So… what did you think of this paper?” Heard in every journal club. Now turn that discussion into a review

A citation only tells you a paper exists. A rating tells you if it’s worth trusting.

Machines predict. Humans reflect. Paperstars makes reflection visible. Not artificial intelligence. Actual intelligence.

AI gives you a bland summary. Paperstars gives you a star rating plus a structured review from a real scientist. Not artificial intelligence. Actual intelligence.

Can AI ever understand context, nuance, or methodological flaws the way a scientist can?

AI can compress research into three sentences. Paperstars expands it into critique, context, and clarity. Science deserves more than summaries.

AI is unfiltered. Paperstars reviews are community- and admin-moderated. Constructive critique only.

What’s the most dangerous thing about relying on AI summaries in research?

AI will never tell you if a paper has been questioned. On Paperstars, you see the discussion and join in. Real human voices. Real science.

AI tools can summarise papers. But what’s the most valuable human insight you’ve seen in a discussion of a paper?

Books have Goodreads. Restaurants have Tripadvisor. Science deserves the same. Goodreads for science. Not AI. Actual intelligence.

If science had star ratings like Goodreads, what paper in your field would be a 5/5 - and why?

❤️❤️❤️

Join our upcoming webinars “Peer Review and its Diversification”! 📅 15-16 October 2025 on Zoom 👉 Registration: forms.gle/1R4Y3d33W8bQ... 📄 Full programme: docs.google.com/document/d/1... #PeerReview #PeerReviewWeek #PRW2025 #metasci #academicsky

What’s a phrase in an abstract that always makes you suspicious?

you’re on a hiring committee. there’s a longlist of early-career applicants. your job? skim their publication lists. half are in big journals. half are in journals you’ve never heard of. and you ask: how do we know what’s actually good? 1/

✍️ We are so happy to announce that we have signed DORA! We stand behind everything the declaration says and want to see the scientific community move in this direction!

Don’t neglect your profile! You can add a bio, your career stage, institute, and scientific interests

What’s one thing your journal club does that makes it awesome?

tuesday story time! you finally get the reviewer comments back. major revision. reviewer two strikes again. the complaint? “this method is unproven.” “no prior evidence supports this approach.” “feels too exploratory.” but you know that’s not true. 1/

⭐️ Once you have have made your selections on the different weighted parameters, a star rating is automatically calculated BUT you can manually adjust it too if you don’t think it’s right!

Did you know that you can claim your own papers with your ORCID? When you reply to a review on your own paper you will get a little “author” badge too!

Do you think open access should be mandatory for public-funded research?

More and more scientists are sharing their take on the papers they read—constructively, anonymously, and in the open. Paperstars is building momentum. Join the community. Rate a paper. Add your voice. 👉

You're in lab meeting. Someone pulls up a new paper. “Anyone read this yet?” 1/

📝 Paperstars reviews must meet a minimum word count - and they’re guided by prompts. “Is the interpretation appropriate?” “Are the stats sound?” That keeps reviews useful, specific, and worth reading. #academicsky

Paperstars reviews are anonymous -but grounded. Anyone can rate and review a paper. If you're verified (e.g. via academic email), your reviews carry a verification badge.

What’s a “red flag” you watch for when reading papers in your field?

Researchers are adding thoughtful ratings and reviews to Paperstars - highlighting rigour, calling out weak stats, and surfacing underrated work. Your voice matters too. Review a paper you’ve read and help shape what quality looks like. 👉

It’s been two years since your paper came out. Small journal. No press. Barely any citations. 1/

🔓 We’ve added safeguards to prevent targeted negativity. If someone submits 3+ critical reviews about one author, our system flags it for review. The goal? Fairness, not feuds. #academicsky

Every review on Paperstars is guided by seven key questions - from the appropriateness of the title to the clarity of the limitations. Your review is more than a rating - it’s a reflection of rigour, and it stays visible alongside the paper.

What makes you trust a scientific paper? Is it the journal? The stats? The transparency?

This week on Paperstars: Constructive reviews. Quiet rigour. A handful of standout papers getting 4★+ across the board. What’s your take? Review a paper you’ve read and help shape the signal. 👉

A flashy new paper drops. People start sharing it. Press release, podcast, hype. You pause. 1/

👉 All reviewers can be academically verified, but stay anonymous. That means reviews are honest without fear of backlash. No names, but real researchers - moderated for tone, rigour, and substance. #academicsky

Did you know? If you claim your papers via ORCID, you’ll show up as an author if you add a comment! It’s a small but powerful way to connect your work to what the community thinks after publication.

The Paperstars feed is growing. Smart reviews. Honest ratings. Papers you know—and some you might’ve missed—are sparking real discussion. Why not add your perspective? 👉