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.

Qed mousepad

Just received my mouse(fly)pad from @qedscience.bsky.social

Plasmid conjugation from a heteroplasmic donor

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...

Amazing! Congratulations @daganlab.bsky.social!👏

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...

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...

"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

Thanks Evan!

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...

This is such a great and timely survey on author's perception of peer review vs AI scientific review. A collaboration between @reviewcommons.org and @qedscience.bsky.social. The geek in me would have liked to see the distributions in the response scores ;). link.springer.com/article/10.1...

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 👇👇👇🔥).

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...

Thank you Michael!

I just tried out Q.E.D. @qedscience.bsky.social on our recent preprint. I'm impressed. It's a little bit pedantic, but overall it identified the keys advances and limitations of the work and pointed me to some missed citations. I'm impressed!

a man with a beard is smiling and saying `` i appreciate you '' in a black and white photo . ALT: a man with a beard is smiling and saying `` i appreciate you '' in a black and white photo .

Just had a very nice online meet up with a bunch of hardcore users of @qedscience.bsky.social. It's amazing to have this support from the scientific community, to hear your ideas for new features & directions, and to learn how to improve based on your feedback - thank you! 🤟🍻

Yes!

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!
🧪

Hi there! Feel free to email us at info@qedscience.com with any question, we’ll take it from there

Thank you André!

Thank you!

Thanks for the shout out!

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.

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...

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

a man pointing to a sign that says believe ALT: a man pointing to a sign that says believe

2025 was a rough year for science worldwide (and in general), but, despite everything, I am optimistic. Why? Because of
@qedscience.bsky.social! This crazy endeavour actually has a chance of changing how academia works.. 👇

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!)

Cold and lithium delay forgetting of olfactory memories in Caenorhabditis elegans Nature Neuroscience - In this study, we identify an actively regulated process that governs the rate of forgetting in Caenorhabditis elegans, modulated by both temperature and the mood-stabilizing...

Our🥶COOLNESS paper to date is finally published! Ice cold and lithium dramatically delay forgetting (extend memory) in C. elegans. Why? read all about it! 👇
rdcu.be/eVhn2

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❤️www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2025/12...

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.

Thank you @lemonde.fr! If you’re a French scientist, you should try qed. Also if you’re not.

www.lemonde.fr/sciences/art...

“qed analyzes manuscripts with remarkable precision, depth and logic”. A great write-up on @qedscience.bsky.social
by Jörg Klug in @laborjournal.bsky.social.

Enthusiastic user feedback + thoughtful critique = the conversation science needs around AI and review.

laborjournal.de/rubric/hinte...

I liked this thoughtful article about q.e.d‘s AI Review and our collaboration with @openrxiv.bsky.social (biorxiv) in @nature.com. Yes, AI is here to stay and we need to get ready. One important note that was missing in this piece: we intentionally made qed an authors-centric tool (see more below) 👇

Interesting fact: even though our core focus is currently biological research papers, ~15% of total uploads are of clinical papers, and many upload grants… even though we haven’t officially dealt with those (yet 😉).

Which areas do you think we should go into next?