It's not in Beall's list of predatory journals: https://beallslist.net/ Overall, little information exists online on Qeios. I too got an invite, but declined.

Thank you for the answer.

I too have the same doubts... I'm inclined to decline...

There was an article published recently through the University of Columbia recommending the journal, and the author has published in the journal (https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/new-journal-seeks-reduce-bias-scientific-publishing). According to this article, they are applying for listing in the Web of Science and PubMed. It is not listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, but it is indexed in Google Scholar. The journal does not charge authors unless they opt for a more targeted search of "top experts in the field" for peer reviews for £25 per month. Otherwise the free plan uses an automated search for peer reviewers via artificial intelligence. Articles become published after three positive reviews, which are also published with reviewer names along with any dialog between reviewers and authors.

Thank you Brady for your extended answer. Regards.

I get these from time to time. I always ignor. Reputable journals don’t fish for reviewers

You are right. Thanks for the answer.

I got invited too. I agree with Tadhg. Also, the fact that a red flag popped up for all of us, it means that our intuitions felt reasons to be alert...

Hola Pilar. He recibido también una invitación como revisor de un artículo en esta revista Qeios.

¿Cuál ha sido tu conclusión o experiencia si has revisado finalmente el artículo que comentabas? Gracias

Hola Francisco

Después de recibir varias respuestas en ese sentido, decidí declinar la invitación, no te puedo decir nada más. Saludos cordiales.

No

I was contacted by Qeios to review a paper in an area that have no expertise. I rejected the invitation.

I had to first search about QEIOS in Google scholar.

I found interesting papers there published under Qeios and have citations. This gave me courage to believe in their preprint.

Meanwhile they sent me an invitation to submit my paper to their preprint a few days ago.

I said let me risk one of them. I sent them our paper and in 24hrs it was online with ORCID.

I have received good comments, we shall work on them to improve the structure of our manuscript.

The paper has attracted 17 readers on research gate mire giving comments.

Thank you fellow scholar for the input you are making to our manuscript.

Thank you Qeios team for posting our paper. We shall make an effort to improve the manuscript now scored at 3/5, we shal reach 5/5 soon.

Fulgensia Kamugisha Mbabazi That paper was really interesting one. Hope to see the improved manuscript soon. Good luck

Thank you Rohantha for the time and useful comments. For sure we are trying our best to improve the paper.

We shall post our new manuscript ASAP.

I am overwhelmed with the review comments from Qeios! I recommend fellows to try Qeios for excellent papers.

Regards,

F.K.Mbabazi

I have received it too.. but I just ignored

From the paintings they use, they seem to exclude white males.

I just received an email from them request me to review a paper

Received an invitation to review, and I did. It is an interesting journal paper

I received an email from them requesting me to review a paper and I declined because I didn't have the expertise.

Just received an email from them to review a paper. I guess AI is used in selecting reviewers. The philosophy of Qeios will help to a large extent in overcoming the excesses of journal editors.

Re comment of Laureano Luna Cabañero: I received review request, belonging to the group of white males (even elderly:-) )

I also recently received another email asking for a review of the article. At first I was skeptical and thought it was some kind of spam. After Your comments, I will take a closer look at what it is about. Thanks everyone!

I think it's an interesting challenge, but at the moment I'm not sure if they can get good quality reviewers.

I am definitely in full support of this and will ask my fellow friends and colleagues to boost the system further.

Pilar Couto-Cantero Just try it if you have time for review. It is a new concept, but nice!

I just received a referee request today from these people for an article that is a near verbatim copy of an article already in print. This makes me think the content of the articles might not actually be coming from the listed authors either, but instead be the output of AI or some kind of scam being used to bolster the reputation of the site. I've contacted the author... we'll see.

me too... I just saw a request sitting on my mail... had gone to the wrong file and it is like 1 month old, I will think and investigate further.

I just got from QUEIOS a request to review a paper not on my specialty but on my marginal interest. At first, I was apprehensive because never heard about this journal, but after entering their page and reading the comments answering Pilar-Couto Cantero question (“Does anyone know about QEIOS?“, June 16, 2022) I got convinced that I should join QUEIOS and review. I agree that submitting papers to Queios is an interesting initiation for our students to get used to the publishing arena.

From the email I received from them, "Qeios differs from traditional publishing as authors have the freedom to choose which suggestions to address and how deeply to engage with reviewers. However, I did submit an unfinished paper just to see how it is reviewed but was appalled by some reviewer comments. My understanding is QUEIOS publishes as a preprint. That is, author(s) can submit their unfinished papers or returned papers to receive feedback from reviewers. This is to help them improve their manuscripts before (re)submitting them to journals to be reviewed and then published. Some reviewers' comments are as though Qeios is a journal and take author(s) to be like Masters or Ph.D. students in a classroom. I have been reviewing papers for the last 10 years and as tough as I am, I try to assist author(s) by making constructive comments and not being biased to discourage or make them feel they don't know what they are writing about. Besides they have spent time putting together their work and we need young author(s) to contribute to academia.

Qeios is a platform for self-publishing of preprints. I tried it out and got some useful reports.

I'm an advisor to Qeios. We are attempting to disrupt the publishing industry by making it faster for authors to publish, to publish for free, and to read for free. Peer review is supposed to be crowdsourced, but there is a bot-based system that matches peer reviewers to articles (this is no different from Elsevier). I attempted a similar startup years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzJ7IfoQk34&t=8s) but couldn't do that and be a tenured professor at the same time.

Sure I recommend you do. I have reviewed for Qeios before and it is an excellent platform for people who are mostly going to public for the first time. Reviewers are supposed to recommend edits and changes for authors before they finally publish. I see many reviewers on this platform do not understand this.

I just published my feedback for a Qeios article. I found the editorial architecture of the platform very interesting... Forward Qeios!!!

Sure I recommend you do. I have reviewed for Qeios before and it is an excellent platform for people who are mostly going to public for the first time. Reviewers are supposed to recommend edits and changes for authors before they finally publish. However, I see many reviewers on this platform do not understand this.

If the preprint does not deserve to be published, how is it rejected? It already has a DOI assigned.

Yes, QEIOS is a scientific research publishing platform that differs from traditional academic journals as it enables open peer review and collaboration among researchers. Manuscripts can be uploaded to the platform prior to undergoing peer-review and publication in an academic journal.

If in doubt, don't answer it. Personally I am not ready to "disrupt" the publishing status quo. All I need is for corrupt reviewers to be weeded out from the honest ones. "Disruption" has nothing to do with the serial abuse of peer review ethics that I have witnessed in the past - though it seems editors of established journals are finally, finally catching on to the tactics of unprofessional peer reviewers.

@Frederick Green. I think the Qeios model DOES help weed out corrupt reviewers. Reviews are not anonymous, which is the Achilles heel of the conventional academic publishing model. The corrupt/unethical reviewer can hide behind anonymity. I have always been in favour of open reviews for this very reason. If you provide poor or obviously biased reviews, and thos reviews are public, you are only trashing your own reputation.

I recently got an e-mail invitation to review a Qeios preprint. After checking that the preprint already has 16 open review reports published in their system, I wonder what's the point of getting extra reviews?? In my experience, I never got more than 2 or three peer review reports per preprint and per journal. I think this publication model, although it has some merit, may overload researchers with pointless work. Also, this extensive reviewing process may be designed mostly to give publicity to their publications.

The public review process in some platforms has raised concerns as it may be used or unintentionally function as a phishing strategy. Authors are limited to only a small number of free revisions, forcing them to decide between leaving their work unchanged or opting for monthly payments.

Harsh and relatively baseless reviews (by those who are invited through an inaccurate AI algorithm) that normally happen can potentially lead to defamation, a scenario that no author desires.

Ensuring the review process remains private is crucial to prevent such platforms' business models from taking advantage of authors and coercing them into subscribing. Otherwise, authors may feel compelled to expose their preprint articles with unresolved issues. It is advised to be super cautious when posting any preprints on such platforms or reviewing any preprint paper to avoid participating in this practice.

Personally, I find it goes against my academic integrity to make my reviews or comments public, particularly when it could potentially create an unequal relationship between the author and a company that holds authority over the data posted by the author (you cannot remove what you post). I believe in maintaining confidentiality and respecting the privacy of authors during the review process.

Hamed Hossieni makes some good points but I would have thought baseless negative reviews would be rather obvious as such to researchers in the author's field. Hence, they would reflect badly on the reviewer, which was the point I made when arguing for public reviews.

Hamed Hosseini's point about monthly payments is deeply concerning if Qeios turns out to be just another scavenger journal business model. Apart from that I find that the arguments by Hosseini and Damper, respectively, regarding open reviews make fair points. In the end, I suppose it boils down to how to ensure the integrity of the reviewers...

I have used Qeios for two preprints. Exposure is reasonably good - about 800 reads and 7 reviews for all 3.5 months and 750 reads and 4 reviews for the first 3 weeks of July 2023.

The first Ms. you upload to them garners you free access to exposure to not only anyone interested in reading it but also reviewer invitees. The latter will cost you 25 £ for the second Ms.

Quality of the reviewers leaves a lot to be desired, but a few are good. I didn't know revisions were limited, but I never made more than two. Dr Hosseini is correct. There's no removing a post once entered, although they will edit your response to a reviewer, if anything remotely negative is perceived by the Qeios Team. They are a little "wok" but nothing like Reddit.

IMHO they fill a niche between the tyrant journals that suppress anything outside the official narrative, the open access journals with high APCs, and subscription journals.

I have recruited a couple of Qeios reviewers to submit a formal peer review to an open access, no APC journal that requires you to provide the peer reviewers.

But I don't require privacy in communications on such matters. To each his own. I'm not quite sure how an author can be forced to pay anything. An author is no worse off than he is by not submitting. We all make errors and public criticism can be healthy.

PS The Qeios AI algorithm never invited me, so any invitee should consider it an honor, although not a duty.

Hi Pilar, I just was asked to review for Qeios as well and had the same question. I did the review out of curiosity and also saw that the article I was asked to review already received 14 reviews after I had already agreed to the commitment. I don't see how any author could or should respond to this much feedback and also feel it is not fair to reviews to request their time if there is already an adequate number of reviews given. So, while I comment any organization for trying to disrupt the publishing systems that be and make information more accessible to the masses, I am not sure if Qeios has worked out all the kinks yet to operate functionally based on my recent experience. Good luck!

I got also invitation but dont know what to do 9f a,work is already published then why this review

I was recently invited to review a manuscript on Qieos. All the reviews are visible on the review page. Ethically it seems that this journal is interesting without excessive fees as other journals. It is even free of charge. This encourages me to perform the review and to support Qieos in the future with manuscipt submissions.

Very interesting. I got the review invitation today, and I was not sure what to do with it - then searched and found this post. I have the impression that they fish for many reviewers, but this is just my opinion for now.

well the same concern was sent for me today ,,, not sure that i will reply

I have also been invited. I am considering the review.

As a scientist, I support the Qeios initiative and share the same opinion as Peter Muenning. I am now 82 years old and see how science has degraded for years, lost its independence, sold itself, and filled the wallets of the big publishing corporations. At my age, I have no financial support and am asked to pay about 3000 USD to online journals privately. What an imposition and impudence. Then come the peer reviewers who remain unknown, hide their ignorance protected, and act venomously too. I find the Qeios system more fair and acceptable and recommend to supporting it. This is what I have just done as a freewill reviewer. My review is practically a public comment and I get a DOI for my letter.

I also received the invitation from Qeios to review. They have been persistent. I don't know whether to accept...

Sure, that's their business model, they need reviewers. But you can look at the MS, is it serious writing or not, is it worth to give an assessment or not. I find the biggest problem of Q. the complete confusion of titles, no systematization by subjects and specialties. If they persist in this, they will not get too far.

Thank you very much for your reply

Thank you for the input on this. I think I will do my first review for them, and support their move. They invited me to review one of their manuscripts a few days ago. All the best to the Qeios team.

Yes, QEIOS is a scientific research publishing platform that differs from traditional academic journals as it enables open peer review and collaboration among researchers. Manuscripts can be uploaded to the platform prior to undergoing peer-review and publication in an academic journal.

Qeios is committed to Open Science and transparency. The principle they operate is that rather than censoring scientific discourse using an unreliable pre-publication peer review system, they promote post-publication open evaluation and discussion.

I just got an invite to review an article too.

The modus operandi appears commendable, offering more empowerment to authors. This system transparently facilitates the publication of your work, eliminating anonymous reviewing altogether.

I have been invited to peer review papers for Qeios 3 or 4 times in the past. Only the last paper I received was somehow related to my field of expertise (in a very broad sense). They give you roughly 3-4 weeks for the review process (although they are flexible). I haven't accepted their invitations so far, but it seems to me that they have good intentions. The question now is, who would send papers for publication in a new "journal" like this? If done correctly, it could be a very good choice for PhD students who need fast publications (without paying APC fees) in order to defend their thesis. But will a university see this as a publication? For the time being, this is questionable.

I was asked to review a paper and it was relevant to my field of practice and expertise, so I have reviewed for Qeios, yes.

I think the time has come to save time and money when publishing. We provide free reviews for journals that then charge people to publish. We want reviews to try to improve the scientific merit of the publication, but it should be streamlined. How to do that is not clear. Qeios, now offers a "Pro" subscription, that costs, but not clear the benefits, and if we should support it. Hopefully qeios will be indexed in pubmed in the future.

I agree. It makes perfect sense. Hopefully, let us see how it goes.

Why predatory? Has someone demanded money from you? I think it is a good thing for the author and also for the reviewer. No one has to pay money, in contrast to the "prestigious" peer review journals, which pay up to 3500 USD for the publication. In addition, the reviewer's paper is considered a quasi-publication, it gets his own DOI. I have already reviewed two papers. Unfortunately, there are also confusing manuscripts that are far from being published.peer-review.

After receiving an invitation from Qeios last night, I decided not to accept the review since it had no relevance to my scholarly interests or fields of expertise. At least for this case, AI matching failed.

I also received an invitation to review the paper a couple of days before but I have not accepted the invitation yet because the journal is not listed in the JCR list.

Me too! Have been invited a couple of times but maybe going to review the current one!

If the work in it is novel and rigour , it is advisable to accept to review and forward ample feedbacks.

Is it indexed or impacted? I received an invitation to review a paper, and i accepted the revision.

Doing one now... not an impressive article but maybe I can help authors...

Great. That is my feeling most of the time. Help others, especially up/incoming authors.

sure. do I have something to do?

I have been using Qeios for a year or more. I find it an excellent way to share information and to obtain rapid and constructive peer review. It is quite user friendly and I have shared about 8 articles on it. These have definitely benefitted from the feedback and most have now been subsequently published or accepted for publication in Journals or in one case, a magazine. I would encourage potential reviewers to participate as it allows direct dialog between the author and reviewer which I think makes for a much more co-operative and transparent arrangement. It's also much quicker and less confrontational than traditional anonymised approaches. I've found that several reviewers have subsequently contacted me to suggest a remote meeting to discuss potential projects together which is an unexpected but usually welcome bonus.

I posted a controversial paper entitled "What Went So Wrong in Economics" that was not asking a question but making a statement, echoing Kaldor's 1975 QJE paper that influenced my own work so heavily which he called "What Is Wrong With Economics"... Kaldor connected increasing returns to a generalized complementarity in social relations, but did not mention the key implication of all that was a strong case for the efficiency of cooperation...

In any event, after posting my 2023 paper on this subject, the first comment was pretty discouraging. It was basically "Meh..." However, all subsequent reactions were strongly positive and often quite penetrating, and some of them added important insights, extensions and elaborations of my central claims and arguments. Posting on Qeios was a really interesting and valuable experience, and I recommend it to others, and most especially for those of us who are independent researchers. Thank you so much, to those of you who have organized and offer this valuable service to the rest of us!!!

Fred Jennings

Frederic B. Jennings Jr., Ph.D.

Center for Ecological Economic and Ethical Education (CEEEE)

P.O. Box 946, Ipswich, MA 01938-0946

Email: [email protected]

Cell Phone: +1-617-605-3150

Qeios is an anti-predatory journal. Let me explain what I mean by anti-predatory. Predatory journals have two essential features that make them predatory (i) they do not have a rigorous peer review system (ii) they charge the authors for publishing. Whether a journal does rigorous peer review of every paper is a matter of faith. For most mainstream journals there is no evidence that they do, since peer reviews remain confidential. The definition of predatory journal will be clear only when the peer reviews are transparent. If all mainstream journals start making their peer reviews transparent, predatory journals will vanish in no time.

Qeios has its entire peer reviewing in the public domain. So the evidence for and quality of peer reviews is accessible to the reader. It also does not charge the authors. Therefore this is the only anti-predatory journal in existence in my knowledge. If more anti-predatory journals come into existence, predatory ones will simply evaporate.

I previously complained about the minimal costs for Cureus that they require for improving the text. Subsequently after publishing a preprint i was overwhelmed by journals suggesting that they publish the preprint at very high prices. Some with IFs 3 or more with a * whatever that means, accepted without peer review andnot appearing in PubMed. Cureus with minimal costs quickly publishes your article with an IF >1 and appears in PubMed. It seems like a good alternative.

Prof. Paul Froom MD

Wish to post here on my very positive experience with using Qeios.

First, my background and journey to Qeios. Over time I have been published quite extensively in the standard peer-reviewed literature – including Nature.

But a number of commentators in recent years have observed that the standard journals have taken on – far from always but more often – more of a gatekeeping role supporting mainstream views.

It can even be put, to paraphrase one author, that this is the Zeitgeist of our times: the public never interfaces with the full quality, prolific, and creative scholarship that abounds, because administrators gatekeep and inhibit certain lines of inquiry.

In my case, it was as a result of moving from quite successful work in risk management at jurisdiction level – with highly cited papers - into the field of global catastrophic risks – still getting highly cited papers. One such global catastrophic risk is climate change. While looking at global atmospheric processes, I found patterns which to me explained outstanding questions. But although this work was published in peer-reviewed journals with reasonable impact factors, and was being quite widely read, suddenly citations dropped off a cliff. Had my science suddenly become so much worse; or were my papers somewhat out of alignment with the mainstream, and therefore inconvenient?

I had lived with this, valuing the high page views of the recent papers, even if I was not getting cited widely.

But for my most recent manuscript, suddenly even getting . reviews by mainstream journals was harder, and even when reviews were somewhat positive, journals still passed.

So, after advice about the existence of Qeios from a learned colleague, I submitted to Qeios.

Suddenly everything changed – I got reviews straight away (up to nine now) including from people right in the specialty, and including positive ones from scientists with high H-indices. And after a couple of months the paper has now passed peer review (at least four peer reviews and a net review score in the green zone), and quite high page views and pdf downloads.

In conclusion I consider Qeios has implemented the things about scholarly publishing and peer review that are badly needed and that inquiries have recommended but that the mainstream journals never seem to get around to implementing.

The Qeios team are also very approachable and interact in an extremely friendly, sunny way!

Thank you, Qeios!

Thank you for your thoughts!

Thank you, Mark Legget. I agree with you. Fewer and fewer MSs are being accepted that contradict common (wrong) opinions. This is happening not only to young scientists but also to experts with a high level of expertise.

The "established" and expensive journals are increasingly becoming a brake on science. I reviewed several papers for Qeios (good and not-so-good) and decided to preprint my last "non-conformist" paper at Qeios. Thus, I have the opportunity to learn counter-reviewers and their arguments better.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_good_is_Qeios_as_an_academic_journal, https://exaly.com/journal/110174/qeios/?from=2020&to=2022

I had also a positive experience. I think the idea of opening referees is ethic. Pietro

I have invited to. Do you recommend to accept It?

Yes, I recommend it. I have done the same.

For a few d,ays I even posted a paper there myself to see if Qeios selects the reviewers professionally or randomly.

I got it! I'd like to thank everyone

I recommend it; receiving constructive feedback is essential for enhancing your writing. After incorporating the reviews, you can refine the paper further and then submit it to your preferred journal. Simultaneously, it is your responsibility to provide valuable feedback to others, contributing to the creation of a positive feedback loop

Well, I already agreed to join, because to begin with, the topic that they invited me to review seems interesting to me.

I was invited as a reviewer for a meta-analysis. When I checked the paper it turns out that more than half of the references was fraud, including a so called meta-analysis from myself, which I never wrote, a paper that does not exist at all! I was shocked to read this. Preprint A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Psychotherapeutic A...

Hi, Annette. Yes, what is happening at Qeios is not entirely nice. There is a huge discrepancy between desire and reality. I pre-printed a catch manuscript at Qeios (Introduction to Evolutionary Cancer Cell Biology (ECCB) and Ancestral Cancer Genomics) to see who was reviewing it. 2/6 (33%) were professionally disastrous and malicious. Another 2/6 (33%) were very good and constructive. The other 2/6 (33%) had minor expertise but were not malicious. The malicious ones with their one red star try to push down the overall rating. The same work preprinted elsewhere brought 82 interested readers at the same time, 50 of them (61%) had found the work interesting and downloaded it. The result at Qeios, on the other hand, looks very meager and frustrating. But perhaps many experts with proven expertise do not want to appear as Qeios reviewers, who knows.

I need to know if there is an acknowledgment for reviewers.

Hi Annette

It seems to me that your experience is exactly how Qeios is designed to work. You should now post your lucid, well-informed comment above as a review of that paper and give it the lowest rating - one red star. The paper needs at least four reviews and at least a green star average to pass peer review. If most reviewers are like you, it will not pass peer review and be seen by readers everywhere as what you claim it is, and like you, they will be shocked. But that response will be properly to the authors' conduct, not to that, or the design, of Qeios.

Hi everybody

I was asked to review and I declined because I am busy. Then I received another email saying "If you're currently busy working on your next paper, we invite you to consider ..."

I am still skeptical about the pattern of work, We need more clarification on this.

This was my comment on the paper I was asked to review. Qeios has repleid to me by email, but the paper is still on the website. Both authors have posted the paper as a 'preprint' on ResearchGate as well. I have left a comment there too.

Review of: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Psychotherapeutic Approaches for Recurring Nightmares

The reviewer(s) rated it 1/5

Annette van Schagen1 DeclarationsReviewer(s) details 📷

I can not review this paper, because the paper is based on non-existing studies. More than half of the references does not exist, I checked them all. Inluding a reference of my own, Van Schagen et al 2020, which I did not write, nor did any of the co-authors write this. The results are fraud. I will report this to the journals that their names are being used for a fraud paper.

Qeios's reply by email:

Dear Annette,

thank you for your recent review https://doi.org/10.32388/LQBH7B, which has brought critical information to our attention. Research integrity is the cornerstone at Qeios, and we are committed to upholding the highest standards in scientific publishing.

Your keen observations regarding potential irregularities in the reviewed paper are being treated with the utmost seriousness. We want to assure you that we are already actively investigating the matter and will take all the necessary actions as required.

Your significant contribution underscores the value of our open peer review model. Unlike traditional journal systems, where peer reviews are often limited to 2 or 3 anonymous individuals, our approach actively involves all relevant peers. This transparent process allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of research works, enabling the identification of crucial aspects that might still go unnoticed despite the reviews of multiple peers. This highlights the value of our model that’s not capped at a few peers behind the scenes, but rather allows all relevant peers to participate actively.

Your ability to spot these discrepancies emphasizes the importance of our open approach, and your dedication to upholding the integrity of scholarly discourse is highly commendable.

Please feel free to reach out using this email address for any further communications or queries related to this matter. In the meantime, we wish you a wonderful weekend ahead.

Thank you again so much for your invaluable contribution.

Warm regards,

Qeios Team

I have used this discussion to make my decision on Qeios, whether I would review a paper they have sent me; and also, whether to submit to them. I have done one peer-review to them, and I have also submitted two preprints, one waiting for approval.

I feel it is an initiative worth giving a chance. We all know how expensive are those publications fee, and also how annoying are the months we have to wait for a review, a decision.

Hi, As far as I understand, Qeios is a platform that uses artificial intelligence to send an article to referees and provide feedback to the author. Do you think so?

I have received a review request, and regardless of any reservations we may have about the publisher, i think it remains crucial to offer a sincere, professional, and scientifically grounded assessment for every submission we encounter. Consistently providing thoughtful reviews will contribute significantly to fostering the credibility and integrity of academic content over time.

Here goes my review on Qeios, I am also incorporating what I have read on those discussions on ResearchGate. Hopefully, I can help others to make their mind around the platform.

I have one preprint under review, and a second one waiting approval for being reviewed online.

After almost 10 reviews on my first preprint, less than one month online, here goes my impression:

- Not sure how they will moderate the bad reviews. I have gotten one, that seems legitimate from the outside, but it is out of the blue. Basically, all the person said is out of context, they either just wrote something generic and random, or they read other paper and posted on mine by accident. Sent a message to the admins, no reply so far. The review should be taken down.

- After almost 10 reviews, it is confusing. Some said my work is good, others said no; it is even hard to decide what to change with so much conflicting feedbacks. The ones that said no seems random, and out of context. In fact, it may also happen with the conventional review system, but they disappear, now, they stay online. A moderation should be created, a better one.

I cannot say whether you should use Qeios, I think you should think and take the risk. We are in a tough spot anyway.

Some said about the universities accepting Qeios: just a small number of journals are really accepted by academia, and they charge a lot. For instance, I have been publishing in Brazilian journals, they do not charge at all. Most of them, even if they have the same system of international journals, they are not recognized. It does not matter where you publish, unless you publish on a handful number of journals, you are in trouble anyway.

They have a nice AI that sends you a summary of all the reviews. It can be confusing as the reviews grow. Specially, they can be confusing since they say different things about the same paper. For instance, one said my paper was well-written and structured, other said it was poorly written (I was unable to find the typo they said exist on my paper). The only criticism: the AI seems not to be advanced since it does not seem to understand what the reviewer meant.

For instance:

The paper should include a discussion on cost considerations when using the latest OpenAI models. (Mentioned by: R E.)

In fact, the reviewer said the opposite: I have done a nice discussion on this topic.

One challenge I am facing: handling "random" reviews. Some reviews seem to be totally created, others partially. It is hard to trust someone that seems to make things. For instance, it happened more than one time. The person said my text had typos, grammar problems and more. They cited examples, but the examples do not exist on my paper using ctl + F. Even though several reviews were helpful, one was so detailed that I had to add to my paper new sections mentioning this awesome review, but others seem people that has no idea what the paper is about, and focus on made-up grammar/spelling issue, which do not exist when they kindly give examples. This is really a challenge to handle. That is, it seems to create create too much noise, even though, you may eventually find useful information on the reviews.

Hope to keep you all updated on my experience on Qeios.

Yours Sincerely,

Jorge,