#openrxiv — Public Fediverse posts

#OpenRxiv just added an #AI #PeerReview feature for #preprints on #bioRxiv and #medRxiv. At the moment, they're using the #qedscience tool.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03909-5

The bioRxiv announcement makes clear that AI review is optional for authors and that authors might be able to choose from other AI tools in the future.
https://connect.biorxiv.org/news/2025/11/04/qed_review_tool

PS: My experiments lead me to think that AI isn't good enough to do peer review yet -- even if (1) it's getting better, (2) it can already help human reviewers, and (3) many human reviewers are worse. Journals that allow it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving authors and readers. Referees who give it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving journals, authors, and readers. If you lean in the same direction, let me suggest that these objections don't carry over to preprint servers making AI review an #FWIW option for authors. This kind of AI review doesn't pretend to be more than it is. When it happens, it's a voluntary decision by authors. Of course authors could have gotten AI feedback on their own, with the AI tools of their choice, and without the preprint-server mediation. But giving them another option for the same kind of feedback is harmless and convenient. Moreover, it creates a training ground to monitor the quality and improvement of the AI tools.

#OpenRxiv just added an #AI #PeerReview feature for #preprints on #bioRxiv and #medRxiv. At the moment, they're using the #qedscience tool.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03909-5

The bioRxiv announcement makes clear that AI review is optional for authors and that authors might be able to choose from other AI tools in the future.
https://connect.biorxiv.org/news/2025/11/04/qed_review_tool

PS: My experiments lead me to think that AI isn't good enough to do peer review yet -- even if (1) it's getting better, (2) it can already help human reviewers, and (3) many human reviewers are worse. Journals that allow it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving authors and readers. Referees who give it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving journals, authors, and readers. If you lean in the same direction, let me suggest that these objections don't carry over to preprint servers making AI review an #FWIW option for authors. This kind of AI review doesn't pretend to be more than it is. When it happens, it's a voluntary decision by authors. Of course authors could have gotten AI feedback on their own, with the AI tools of their choice, and without the preprint-server mediation. But giving them another option for the same kind of feedback is harmless and convenient. Moreover, it creates a training ground to monitor the quality and improvement of the AI tools.

#OpenRxiv just added an #AI #PeerReview feature for #preprints on #bioRxiv and #medRxiv. At the moment, they're using the #qedscience tool.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03909-5

The bioRxiv announcement makes clear that AI review is optional for authors and that authors might be able to choose from other AI tools in the future.
https://connect.biorxiv.org/news/2025/11/04/qed_review_tool

PS: My experiments lead me to think that AI isn't good enough to do peer review yet -- even if (1) it's getting better, (2) it can already help human reviewers, and (3) many human reviewers are worse. Journals that allow it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving authors and readers. Referees who give it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving journals, authors, and readers. If you lean in the same direction, let me suggest that these objections don't carry over to preprint servers making AI review an #FWIW option for authors. This kind of AI review doesn't pretend to be more than it is. When it happens, it's a voluntary decision by authors. Of course authors could have gotten AI feedback on their own, with the AI tools of their choice, and without the preprint-server mediation. But giving them another option for the same kind of feedback is harmless and convenient. Moreover, it creates a training ground to monitor the quality and improvement of the AI tools.

#OpenRxiv just added an #AI #PeerReview feature for #preprints on #bioRxiv and #medRxiv. At the moment, they're using the #qedscience tool.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03909-5

The bioRxiv announcement makes clear that AI review is optional for authors and that authors might be able to choose from other AI tools in the future.
https://connect.biorxiv.org/news/2025/11/04/qed_review_tool

PS: My experiments lead me to think that AI isn't good enough to do peer review yet -- even if (1) it's getting better, (2) it can already help human reviewers, and (3) many human reviewers are worse. Journals that allow it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving authors and readers. Referees who give it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving journals, authors, and readers. If you lean in the same direction, let me suggest that these objections don't carry over to preprint servers making AI review an #FWIW option for authors. This kind of AI review doesn't pretend to be more than it is. When it happens, it's a voluntary decision by authors. Of course authors could have gotten AI feedback on their own, with the AI tools of their choice, and without the preprint-server mediation. But giving them another option for the same kind of feedback is harmless and convenient. Moreover, it creates a training ground to monitor the quality and improvement of the AI tools.

#OpenRxiv just added an #AI #PeerReview feature for #preprints on #bioRxiv and #medRxiv. At the moment, they're using the #qedscience tool.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03909-5

The bioRxiv announcement makes clear that AI review is optional for authors and that authors might be able to choose from other AI tools in the future.
https://connect.biorxiv.org/news/2025/11/04/qed_review_tool

PS: My experiments lead me to think that AI isn't good enough to do peer review yet -- even if (1) it's getting better, (2) it can already help human reviewers, and (3) many human reviewers are worse. Journals that allow it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving authors and readers. Referees who give it too large a role are abdicating their responsibility and might be deceiving journals, authors, and readers. If you lean in the same direction, let me suggest that these objections don't carry over to preprint servers making AI review an #FWIW option for authors. This kind of AI review doesn't pretend to be more than it is. When it happens, it's a voluntary decision by authors. Of course authors could have gotten AI feedback on their own, with the AI tools of their choice, and without the preprint-server mediation. But giving them another option for the same kind of feedback is harmless and convenient. Moreover, it creates a training ground to monitor the quality and improvement of the AI tools.

In the updated license selector, the most open Creative Commons licenses appear first, with refreshed accessible language for each license that centers the researcher and their choices. Thanks to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative for supporting these efforts.

#OpenScience #Preprints #CreativeCommons #bioRxiv #medRxiv #OpenAccess #Research #openRxiv

In the updated license selector, the most open Creative Commons licenses appear first, with refreshed accessible language for each license that centers the researcher and their choices. Thanks to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative for supporting these efforts.

#OpenScience #Preprints #CreativeCommons #bioRxiv #medRxiv #OpenAccess #Research #openRxiv

In the updated license selector, the most open Creative Commons licenses appear first, with refreshed accessible language for each license that centers the researcher and their choices. Thanks to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative for supporting these efforts.

#OpenScience #Preprints #CreativeCommons #bioRxiv #medRxiv #OpenAccess #Research #openRxiv

In the updated license selector, the most open Creative Commons licenses appear first, with refreshed accessible language for each license that centers the researcher and their choices. Thanks to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative for supporting these efforts.

#OpenScience #Preprints #CreativeCommons #bioRxiv #medRxiv #OpenAccess #Research #openRxiv

In the updated license selector, the most open Creative Commons licenses appear first, with refreshed accessible language for each license that centers the researcher and their choices. Thanks to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative for supporting these efforts.

#OpenScience #Preprints #CreativeCommons #bioRxiv #medRxiv #OpenAccess #Research #openRxiv

Prépublications en sciences de la vie et de la santé : #bioRxiv et #medRxiv lancent #openRxiv une organisation indépendante à but non lucratif chargée de leur gouvernance
#Preprints #OpenAccess

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00762-4

Prépublications en sciences de la vie et de la santé : #bioRxiv et #medRxiv lancent #openRxiv une organisation indépendante à but non lucratif chargée de leur gouvernance
#Preprints #OpenAccess

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00762-4

Prépublications en sciences de la vie et de la santé : #bioRxiv et #medRxiv lancent #openRxiv une organisation indépendante à but non lucratif chargée de leur gouvernance
#Preprints #OpenAccess

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00762-4

Prépublications en sciences de la vie et de la santé : #bioRxiv et #medRxiv lancent #openRxiv une organisation indépendante à but non lucratif chargée de leur gouvernance
#Preprints #OpenAccess

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00762-4

#Preprint sites #bioRxiv and #medRxiv launch new era of independence
The popular repositories, where life #scientists post research before #peerreview, will be managed by a new organization called #openRxiv.
Until now, they had been managed by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The new organization, named openRxiv, will have a board of directors and a scientific and medical advisory board. It is supported by a fresh US$16M grant from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00762-4

#Preprint sites #bioRxiv and #medRxiv launch new era of independence
The popular repositories, where life #scientists post research before #peerreview, will be managed by a new organization called #openRxiv.
Until now, they had been managed by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The new organization, named openRxiv, will have a board of directors and a scientific and medical advisory board. It is supported by a fresh US$16M grant from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00762-4

#Preprint sites #bioRxiv and #medRxiv launch new era of independence
The popular repositories, where life #scientists post research before #peerreview, will be managed by a new organization called #openRxiv.
Until now, they had been managed by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The new organization, named openRxiv, will have a board of directors and a scientific and medical advisory board. It is supported by a fresh US$16M grant from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00762-4

#Preprint sites #bioRxiv and #medRxiv launch new era of independence
The popular repositories, where life #scientists post research before #peerreview, will be managed by a new organization called #openRxiv.
Until now, they had been managed by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The new organization, named openRxiv, will have a board of directors and a scientific and medical advisory board. It is supported by a fresh US$16M grant from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00762-4

#Preprint sites #bioRxiv and #medRxiv launch new era of independence
The popular repositories, where life #scientists post research before #peerreview, will be managed by a new organization called #openRxiv.
Until now, they had been managed by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The new organization, named openRxiv, will have a board of directors and a scientific and medical advisory board. It is supported by a fresh US$16M grant from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00762-4