The closer you are to your grant proposal, the harder it can be to see what a reviewer will. Join our free webinar on August 20 to learn how to spot gaps in logic, unclear framing and unsupported claims before submission. 11 AM ET | 5 PM CEST Register: bit.ly/4gbtTKZ @angelaandersen.bsky.social

Peer review was built for a world with fewer papers and more time. We're building for the world science has become. Grateful to The AIJournal for naming QED Science the top platform for 2026, and for recognizing that rigor and scale do not have to work against each other. bit.ly/4gzNANi

More than half of this year's top-scoring life science papers came from international teams. Even accounting for team size: international collaboration = 45% higher odds of hitting the top 1% (OR 1.45, p<0.001). Great science crosses borders. Read the research: bit.ly/4gxTY7K

Most breakthrough science sits in preprints, unread. 57,455 last year alone. 574 exceptional. We found them. the-one-percent.qedscience.com

An extraordinary example of the kind of original, technically powerful science The 1% was created to surface by @angelaandersen.bsky.social & her team, Congratulations! 🎉

Angela Andersen@angelaandersen.bsky.social · last mo.

For the first time, we can see individual mRNAs in 3D inside cells at nm precision. Their shapes vary by gene and subcellular location. Congrats @fbzt.bsky.social & team @impvienna.bsky.social Top 1% @qedscience.bsky.social Edited by @lifescienceeditors.bsky.social www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...

Congratulations on making the %1 @maxbillmann.bsky.social! 🎉🎉

Maximilian Billmann@maxbillmann.bsky.social · last mo.

Glad to see that our preprint was among the QED top 1% www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

12.9% of high-scoring papers ended up in lower-ranked journals. If journal rank has been our primary signal for scientific quality, what have we been missing? Read the methodology → bit.ly/4g48xQi #The1Percent #QEDScience

🎉 Meet The 1%. Out of 57,455 bioRxiv life science preprints, QED Science selected 574 exceptional manuscripts through blind evaluation. The 1%: the-one-percent.qedscience.com Good science deserves to be seen. @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social @openrxiv.bsky.social @richardsever.bsky.social

Tomorrow we publish the largest blind quality assessment of life science preprints ever conducted. 57,455 papers. No names. No institutions. Just the science. The 1% is coming. #The1Percent #QEDScience #Preprints

We looked at 57,455 preprints. No names. No institutions. No reputations. Just the science❕ In 48 hours, we reveal The 1%. #The1Percent #QEDScience #Preprints

Some scientists go all in for their work. June 24 we find out if it made a difference. 👀 Register to be the first to know: www.qedscience.com #The1Percent #QEDScience #Preprints

Will he make the 1%?

A paper can be technically correct, statistically significant, and reproducible and still not generalize. In life science, the hard part is knowing what to trust. QED Science CTO Meir Maor on why life science needs a validity layer: www.qedscience.com/blog/life-sc...

The case for a validity layer in life science research

When OpenAI recently announced that one of its models had disproved a long-standing conjecture in discrete geometry, the scientific community took notice...

qedscience.com

The biggest dataset in science may be the one that doesn't exist: failed experiments. Until we capture that knowledge, both scientists and AI systems are learning from a filtered version of reality. QED started from a simple idea: scientific validity and publication success are not the same thing.

We do not understand what we have made. "You can have a baby, you have no idea how you did it. That shares a lot of symmetries with what's going on now." @drmichaellevin.bsky.social in conversation with @odedrechavi.bsky.social Watch the full webinar → www.qedscience.com/blog/how-wil...

Thousands of scientists use QED Science for manuscripts. We recently launched for grants. Meet our new Implementation Agent: it works directly in your document, suggests fixes, and applies changes you approve. Like track changes from a colleague. Join the waitlist now 👉 bit.ly/3Q7a8tS #GrantReview

AI agents can already scan the literature, analyze data, and generate hypotheses. Some predict they’ll revolutionize medicine. Others warn they’ll flood science. Tomorrow, @drmichaellevin.bsky.social and @odedrechavi.bsky.social discuss this topic. Register here: us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...

"Fishing expedition." "Mechanistic link unclear." "Insufficient preliminary data." "Scope overly ambitious." "Limited novelty." "Lacks meaningful departure from prior work." At some point you realize: you don't just need funding. You need a grant friend! 💙

AI can now read, write, and generate hypotheses. So what happens to science when machines start participating in it? @drmichaellevin.bsky.social and @odedrechavi.bsky.social discuss what AI may or may not change. Live webinar · May 28, 1:30 PM ET Register: us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...

NIH success rates are collapsing. The scariest part isn't the rejections. Bold ideas aren't disappearing. They arrive watered down. Because swinging big got too costly. Researchers aren't losing ambition. They're settling. qed for grants, so your science comes through. qedscience.com

q.e.d Science

Critical Thinking AI for constructive criticism and science evaluation

qedscience.com

The ERC is the Champions League of research. Most don't make it through, not because science is weak, but because the system is overwhelmed. @odedrechavi.bsky.social in @timeshighered.bsky.social on what needs to change. Because your science should define your career. Not the rejection cycle! 🔁

Times Higher Education (THE)@timeshighered.bsky.social · 3mo ago

Long read: If the European Research Council is the victim of its own success, how can it be saved? @jgro-the.bsky.social investigates #ERC #research https://ow.ly/7v1k50YWyOV

It doesn't have to be this way...

Important announcement!!! 💫 Would you have a tooth pulled if it helped your chances to get an important grant funded? Absurd question, but the funding situation is so bad, that I bet some of you actually considered it for a second… keep your teeth! we created something that might help! 👇 (1/16)

Scientists spend 100+ days a year writing grants. Almost none get funded. Not because the ideas are bad. The system is broken, and you fall in the cracks. Today we launched qed for grants: an AI reviewer that makes YOUR proposal stronger before you submit. Early access is open 🔒🩶 Link in comments

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.

Nirodha Weeraratne@nirodhaweeraratne.bsky.social · 4mo ago

📜 So, I bit the bullet and submitted our manuscript (in the disciplines of microbiology and ecology) to @qedscience.bsky.social 's AI-powered review. 🧵 1/4

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

How do authors want to use AI for review? - EMBO Reports

EMBO Reports - A survey of researchers who compared AI-generated scientific reviews with journal-agnostic human peer review reveals that they overwhelmingly prefer using AI as a self-checking tool...

link.springer.com