ChatGPT doesn’t flinch at bad methods. But you did. Leave your review on Paperstars

The system values where it’s published. You care whether it’s any good. That’s why Paperstars exists.

Your journal club already knows when a paper’s nonsense. Now there’s a way to say it…. without career risk.

AI won’t notice if the control group’s missing. You will.

A top journal doesn’t mean top methods. Impact Factor hides bad science too. That’s why reviews belong with the paper.

Journal clubs are the frontline of critical reading. Let’s treat them like it. Share your insight on Paperstars

AI can fake authority. You have it. Paperstars is where real critique lives.

Citations don’t mean quality.They mean someone mentioned it.Review what actually matters over on Paperstars

Journal Club Quote: “Why did they even include this as a factor?” Real question. Real review on Paperstars

The future of science isn’t artificial. It’s accountable.

Quality doesn’t trickle down. It starts with people who care enough to question.

Happy New Year! To get 2026 off to a good start, why not join the first ReproducibiliTea session of the year from 10-11:30AM (online) on Wednesday 7th? Our theme is "how to work openly?" and we'll be hearing from 3 wonderful speakers – Dr Mahesh Karnani, Dr Emma Ganley, and Dr Danny Schnitzler

Your Journal Club already improves science. Paperstars gives it reach.

ChatGPT can’t tell if the figures are misleading. You can.

Citations don’t measure quality. They measure visibility. Paperstars measures the work.

If your Journal Club has ever said, “This paper is wild,” it belongs on Paperstars.

AI sees patterns. You see problems. Keep it human.

If the system won’t fix itself, we build something better. Start here at Paperstars

Paperstars - where Journal Clubs leave receipts. Review your last paper.

LLMs can't judge originality, nuance, or research culture. Humans can. Paperstars is built for you.

Paperstars is where rigour meets transparency. No more gatekeeping.

Your Journal Club spotted the weak link in the methods. Let others know on Paperstars

AI-generated reviews are confident. They’re not always correct. Paperstars is where humans call it.

Citation count doesn’t show critique. Your review on Paperstars does.

Journal clubs are the sharpest rooms in science. Make that insight visible.

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?

❤️❤️❤️