Sign in

nivsm.bsky.social

@nivsm.bsky.social
5 followers 7 following 1 posts
PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
QED Science @qedscience.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
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
021
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
QED Science @qedscience.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
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
032
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 25/06/2026
5. People ask, “Can you game the score by running your paper over and over?” We intentionally scored the papers in retrospect and analyzed papers that people posted on @openrxiv.bsky.social under their real names. We also have protections to try to prevent possible future gaming.
042
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 25/06/2026
I am happy that many of you are checking your “QED Score!”🖖 There’s lots of excitement, and naturally also concerns, that I want to address (see thread, I have 5 quick points to make):
182
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Alan Dreams of Candy Corn @alans9.bsky.social · 25/06/2026
Dr. Rechavi launched an A.I. tool, and we need to consider it. I haven't yet used it, and I don't like A.I. in some forms (generative A.I., or other plagiarism dependent forms). But I do think we need to test this too. What do you think?
132
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
QED Science @qedscience.bsky.social · 25/06/2026
An extraordinary example of the kind of original, technically powerful science The 1% was created to surface by @angelaandersen.bsky.social & her team, Congratulations! 🎉
054
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Emilia Dimitrova @edimitrova.bsky.social · 24/06/2026
Best news on such a hot day! Congratulations @au-ho-yu.bsky.social and @robklose.bsky.social - an amazing achievement! Alan has done an amazing job and is currently working hard to address the reviewers' concerns! Comments came took 4 months to come back - reviewer 2 doesn't agree with g.e.d!
294
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Richard Sever @richardsever.bsky.social · 24/06/2026
"the first validated, large-scale framework for judging the quality of life science papers independently of venue, identity, and prestige...Blinded domain-expert professors sided with score three times more often than with journal rank" the-one-percent.qedscience.com 1/n
the-one-percent.qedscience.com
QED — The most compelling preprints of 2025
173816
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 24/06/2026
Gloves are off! TODAY WE RELEASE THE 1% A list of the year’s very best papers 👇 (see thread)
144314
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
QED Science @qedscience.bsky.social · 24/06/2026
🎉 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
2114
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
QED Science @qedscience.bsky.social · 11/05/2026
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! 🔁
011
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
QED Science @qedscience.bsky.social · 05/05/2026
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
353
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 26/02/2026
Read the paper here: link.springer.com/article/10.1... A pleasure doing this with the great Thomas Lemberger @tlemberger.bsky.social and Niv Samuel Mastboim @nivsm.bsky.social
link.springer.com
163
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 26/02/2026
At the same time, we are building an alternative model that puts agency directly in scientists’ hands. Researchers should be the ones deciding when their work is ready to be shared. We are building the infrastructure to support that.
121
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
QED Science @qedscience.bsky.social · 26/02/2026
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...
0117
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 26/02/2026
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 👇👇👇🔥).
27838
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
QED Science @qedscience.bsky.social · 12/12/2025
Thank you @lemonde.fr! If you’re a French scientist, you should try qed. Also if you’re not. www.lemonde.fr/sciences/art...
lemonde.fr
L’IA bouleverse l’évaluation des articles scientifiques
Des éditeurs de revues scientifiques testent des plateformes d’intelligence artificielle pour analyser leurs avantages et inconvénients lors de l’examen d’un article soumis à un journal.
083
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 12/12/2025
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
0156
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 18/12/2025
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!)
2348
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Julien Béthune @julienbethune.bsky.social · 13/01/2026
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.
222
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Gerrich @gerrich.bsky.social · 15/02/2026
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! 🧪
3114
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
QED Science @qedscience.bsky.social · 08/01/2026
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
qedscience.com
Why We Seek Validation
The scientific method, humanity’s most successful approach to uncovering how the world works, doesn’t rely on “truth” as much as it relies on validity. In fact, “valid” often serves as a sharper, more...
0127
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 16/11/2025
bsky.app/profile/oded...
032
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 06/11/2025
Here's how you can go to @qedscience.bsky.social from the @openrxiv.bsky.social @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social website, when you submit a manuscript:
1132
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 06/11/2025
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) 👇
712864
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 06/11/2025
Please read the thoughtful Blog that @richardsever.bsky.social and the @openrxiv.bsky.social team wrote on integrating pre-prints with AI review openrxiv.org/enabling-rev...
openrxiv.org
Enabling options for review: from training and transparency to author-centered AI tools - openRxiv
Peer review is widely viewed as a critical aspect of biomedical communication. Ideally, it provides authors with feedback so they can improve manuscripts and gives readers, particularly nonspecialists...
12512
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Richard Sever @richardsever.bsky.social · 06/11/2025
Many scientists (including me) have viewed AI review warily. But responses to trials of qed have been very positive. I was impressed with its output, which was developed by iteration with a large number of human reviewers. 3/n
3194
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Richard Sever @richardsever.bsky.social · 06/11/2025
Authors can now send papers directly from bioRxiv to qed and get feedback on improvements they should make – ‘gaps’ that require more work or revision of the claims. 2/n
1103
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Richard Sever @richardsever.bsky.social · 06/11/2025
And of course working with Oded and his team is 4/n
182
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Richard Sever @richardsever.bsky.social · 06/11/2025
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...
openrxiv.org
Enabling options for review: from training and transparency to author-centered AI tools - openRxiv
Peer review is widely viewed as a critical aspect of biomedical communication. Ideally, it provides authors with feedback so they can improve manuscripts and gives readers, particularly nonspecialists...
911664
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 15/10/2025
Here's the link to the system, try it! qedscience.com @qedscience.bsky.social
qedscience.com
q.e.d Science
Critical Thinking AI for constructive criticism and science evaluation
1720467
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 15/10/2025
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 👇)
56495185
Reposted by @nivsm.bsky.social
Bluma Lesch @ambystoma22.bsky.social · 20/08/2025
This was also an exciting paper for us because we got to pre-review it even before submission with q.e.d’s AI qedscience.com. really helpful and improved a lot!
qedscience.com
q.e.d Science
Critical Thinking AI for constructive criticism and science evaluation
2186