QED Science @qedScience

Not a replacement for peer review. Another rigorous perspective on the work. That’s why we built QED Science. @ScienceMagazine on the promises and pitfalls of AI review: science.org/content/articl…

@WalentekLab - Research inputs you share with QED Science are not used to train or fine-tune language models. They’re used to provide the review you requested. Our SOC 2 Type II audit and application penetration testing are performed by independent third parties, and our agreements include binding confidentiality and data-protection terms.

@hubermanlab @OdedRechavi Loved this episode! We know @OdedRechavi personally, and there’s so much more he could unpack. Would be great to have him back for a Part 2!🙏🤩

“I had a more rigorous, attentive, constructive, and useful experience with QED than with many of my peer reviewers in my 35-plus years submitting papers.” Prof. @drmichaellevin from Tufts talks about his experience augmenting peer review with QED Science in this latest feature from @ScienceMagazine. tinyurl.com/5n6bewkv

New @ScienceMagazine feature: About a quarter of AI’s criticisms are missed by human reviewers. Does that mean we should trust AI to replace human judgement? Only if it’s fit for purpose. In "Ready for the Robot Reviewers?", Science gets real about the current state of AI in peer review. tinyurl.com/5n6bewkv

"If the AI didn't get it, maybe my reviewer won't get it." - Prof. Barak Rotblat Not AI as authority. AI as a way to expose where your argument is clearer in your head than on the page. 🎙 Full webinar →bit.ly/4giP5Pu

He ran Blogger for half a billion readers a month at Google. Now Guy Ronen, QED's VP of Product, is tackling something harder: "We want to help scientists validate research and push scientific discovery forward," he told @pulse2news . He talks accuracy, patented review engine, and why the academic tools stay free. → tinyurl.com/34suy8dh (Insights Feed launches soon 👀)

We asked webinar attendees which AI tools they use for grant review.* 52% ChatGPT · 40% Claude · 33% QED Science · 17% Gemini. Researchers aren't picking one tool. They're building their own mix. Full summary → tinyurl.com/3aa78jf5 *Multiple answers allowed.

Would your proposal survive a reviewer's first read? The takeaway from last week's webinar (and more) were turned into a practical checklist, with pre-submission guidance and specific notes for 2026–2027 ERC applicants. 📥 bit.ly/4xYf0Sm

"If you write your risk section as a straight line, it looks naive." Dr. Angela Andersen, Co-Founder, Life Science Editors. Every reviewer knows science is messy. Your proposal should show you know it too. Full recording here: bit.ly/4giP5Pu

Today's webinar on grant review wrapped with a packed Q&A - the biggest themes: responsible AI use and keeping scientific judgment with the researcher. Recording + full Q&A available next week. Thank you Angela Andersen and @BarakRotblat 🎓 🔔 Follow to get notified.

900+ researchers have already registered for our webinar! Join us this Thursday. Learn how to find weaknesses in your grant, strengthen feasibility and use AI as a critical reader without treating it as the scientific authority. 📅 Aug 20 ⏰ 11 AM ET 🔗 Register here: tinyurl.com/rs83dhk7

What if the biggest problem in peer review is what never makes it into the paper? Our CEO @nivmast on @tv10israel failed experiments, missing controls, incomplete evidence, and why scientific review needs a fuller picture. That’s what QED Science is working to address. 🎥👇

Happy to see the results of our cooperation with @eLife. In the pilot, eLife reviewers used QED’s claim-mapping technology and rated ~80% of the comment-to-claim assignments as accurate. Clear evidence that structured AI and expert judgment can work together for more transparent, rigorous research evaluation.

eLife - the journal @eLife

a month ago

Today, we’re pleased to share an overview of the partnerships we’re involved in to harness AI for improving research engagement. elifesciences.org/inside-elife/6…

2 5 11 7K 7

Thank you, @eLife. We’re very happy to collaborate and pleased to see QED Science’s work featured in this important discussion. Our shared exploration reflects a goal at the heart of QED Science: helping researchers assess the validity of scientific claims and understand how well they hold up against the available evidence. We look forward to continuing to explore how AI and human expertise can work together to strengthen research evaluation and communication.

Thanks for sharing 🙏

The closer you are to your grant proposal, the harder it is to see what a reviewer will catch. Join our free webinar on Aug 20 to spot gaps in logic, unclear framing & unsupported claims before submission.

@chlazaris @NovartisUS @Novartis Congrats!🎉🎉🎉

@NirodhaWeerara1 - Thanks for sharing 😍

@Nature sat down with our co-founder Niv Mastboim and asked the question many researchers are asking: Can an AI actually judge whether a scientific claim holds up? His answer: yes, if it’s trained to spot weak evidence as well as strong. Null results, failed replications, contradictions… not just what gets published. In a blind test, experts agreed with our calls 75% of the time on the toughest comparisons.bit.ly/4wj2Xhk @nivmast @OdedRechavi

Check out this recent interview with our CEO Niv Mastboim. Special thanks to @MiryamNaddaf for a great article.

nature @Nature

a month ago

A growing number of private firms are offering researchers artificial-intelligence tools for scrutinizing manuscripts before publication go.nature.com/4go4PAs

2 15 79 41K 35