qed is transforming scientific research with AI
Joined April 2025
- Tweets342
- Following33
- Followers2.5K
- Likes435
Discover research worth your attention. Read more here: qedscience.com/blog/insights…
After countless readings, it can be hard to see your own manuscript clearly.
We’re working with Wiley to help at that moment: authors at selected Wiley journals are now invited to use QED Science to strengthen their manuscripts before submission.
QED examines claims, evidence and reasoning, flagging gaps and inconsistencies. Authors decide what to change.The pilot is optional and independent of Wiley’s editorial review. Manuscripts and reports stay private to the author.
As submissions grow and reviewer capacity struggles to keep pace, we’re exploring how scientific AI can help authors improve work before peer review.
Thank you to @KlugYoel, @latwec and the Wiley team.
More about the pilot:
wiley.com/en-us/insights/edi…
Researchers don't need to search harder. They need the right paper to find them.
How biomechanist Dr. Sauvik Das Gupta went from prompting an LLM to having a continuously updated Insights Feed that learns what matters to his work.
Dr. Sauvik's "The Thirteen Minutes" blog: qedscience.com/blog/the-thir…
It's official: Insights Feed is here! 🎉
The most useful finding for your research might be hiding in a paper you'd never think to search for.
Meet QED Science's Insights Feed: personalized research recommendations, each explaining "Why you should care."
Discover what matters to your research: qedscience.com/blog/insights…
“We’re supposed to be standing on the shoulders of giants, but the scientific corpus is unreliable.”
At the STS Forum in Kyoto, our co-founder @OdedRechavi raised a critical question for AI-driven science:
If AI learns from an incomplete, unreliable scientific record, what is it really building on?
What happens to my unpublished work when I upload it to AI?
Fair question.
Researchers trust us with manuscripts, grants, and ideas that may represent years of work. They should know where that work goes and how it’s protected.
At QED Science:
• Your work stays private unless you choose to share it
• We do not train or fine-tune models on your research
• We use enterprise-grade security, including encryption at rest and in transit, least-privilege access, monitoring, vulnerability scanning, and independent penetration testing
• We have completed a SOC 2 Type II audit and are ISO 27001 certified.
Different AI tools handle sensitive data in different ways. The important thing is knowing what happens to your work.
That should be easy to find out. qedscience.com/security#Data…
#ResearchSecurity #AIinScience
🧠 Happening TODAY: Our CSO, Prof. Oded Rechavi, speaks at the joint SfN - FENS webinar "AI and the Making of Neuroscientific Knowledge" - a session about the ethical questions surrounding AI, its impact on scientific publishing, and how it may shape the future direction of neuroscience research.
📅 Today, 22 September | 17:00–18:00 CEST
📷 Learn more and register: buff.ly/sDZ00Gz
@SfNtweets @FENSorg @OdedRechavi
Thanks @InVivoPodOnX for pointing @paulbloomatyale our way. QED takes a different approach: rather than asking AI to review a paper as a whole, it breaks the paper into individual claims and interrogates the evidence for each. We’d love for Paul to try it.
Dr. Bloom, may I suggest my chat regarding this exact topic with @OdedRechavi who runs @qed (AI review platform). youtu.be/Vhj3s4Dha8g
QED Science retweeted
Dr. Bloom, may I suggest my chat regarding this exact topic with @OdedRechavi who runs @qed (AI review platform). youtu.be/Vhj3s4Dha8g
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/article/…
“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
