Qeios functions as 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. Reviewers' identities are disclosed, and they can provide feedback and engage in discussions with the author and other reviewers. While Qeios offers benefits to researchers seeking open and collaborative feedback, there is no assurance that articles will be accepted or widely acknowledged by the academic community.

Do not review preprints, especially from robots eek :)

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.

Thank you for this important information!

I was asked to review a paper which automatically seemed like a good match with my own interests. It is a math paper so it will take several days before I am done. Only after I accepted did I think of googling Qeios and landed here with this conversation. I am intrigued by this approach to publishing. I guess there are many more questions than answers right now but I will keep an eye on it.

Thanks for the information. I have just received a reviewer invitation from Qeios and had no idea about it.

This information is very useful for me. I also received a reviewer invitation just yesterday. Thanks a lot.

I too received an invitation to peer review. However, I couldn't find the journal indexed in the Scopus or Web of Science. It leaves a question about the credibility of the journal.

I received review invitation from qeios.

I have received a review invitation on my research are from Qeios on September19,2023, but I haven't responded for it whether to accept or decline the invitation. Why AI as editor?

I also received a review invitation from Qeios on September 20, 2023. However, I haven't responded yet. Why the journal has no editors?

I recently peer-reviewed an article for Qeios, and they asked me whether I am willing to add the review to Publons/Web of Science, and I accepted the offer. After seven days, WoS added my review work to my WoS profile. I recommend the researchers to give Qeios a try.

I just received a request to review so I came here to see what my colleagues have experienced. I have not agreed- as yet.

I am revieweing an article and I didn't know this journal but it seems to be an alternative to the big journals

I also received a message to review a journal but I am not sure whether to proceed or not please can you kindly advice. Thanks

Received invitation and reviewed an article. In my opinion, we should embrace it as this is the way forward to combat the stringent hold and monopoly of small number of academics on important international journals. It will discourage the 'politics of publication' :)

I also recently received an email invitation to review an article on a topic I've encountered in my prior experience. In my view, although open review can offer valuable input, it can also make authors susceptible to potential harassment or unhelpful criticism. Ensuring productive discussions can be a difficulty in open review systems....Well, overall, overtaking traditional journals is a substantial challenge.

I also received an invitation to review a paper for this new journal. I am uneasy about the request as Qeios may be a predatory journal.

Yes, that's my key question-I received an invitation to review but I do not know whether this is a predatory journal (if it is I will most certainly not review).

I appreciate the details shared in this discussion. I recently got an invitation to review for Qeios, a platform I wasn't familiar with. Before making a decision, I decided to search for Qeios online and found myself reading through this conversation.

I also received e Mail to review an article

I am not sure about the origin of this web site

And weither it is academic journal?

Does anyone know what is it about this Qeios journal? A collegue and I got the invitation to review a manuscript, but i can't find any information besides this conversation :/

I recently reviewed an article for Qeios and would love to know others’ experiences. The paper I reviewed is of high quality but it remains a preprint. I believe that the method of the journal is a genuine one indeed and if it receives good support from academia, it will contribute to pushing academic publishing into new frontiers.

Considering Qeios is not indexed in Clarivate and Scopus databases, it's important to carefully evaluate its credibility before deciding to publish or review for the journal.

According to this conversation, I decided not to review the MS sent to me.

https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/new-journal-seeks-reduce-bias-scientific-publishing

Starting to make some sense

I got invitation to review an article and I don't know if it would be okay to review in such journal!

I got invitation to review for this journal but I decided to decline offer.

qeios seems to forster Open Society by providing free access to knowledge.

For researchers qeios liberates from censoring scientific discourse using an unreliable pre-publication peer review system.

The idea of free access, no journal fees and post-publication open evaluation and discussion would be great for science and society.

However, scientists love distinguishing from each other, beeing better, faster, reputation seeking, and that is the exact business model of Nature and other publishers.

So human, studid!

I have recieved as well an invitation to review for Qeios, and decided as it is preprints to decline it.

Same, I received a review invitation and decided to decline it. After many years of review papers, I have learnt to check the journal first and I didn't feel right about it

I received an invitation to review a paper, but I declined it immediately due to the poor quality of the writing, particularly in relation to the figures, and the lack of significant contributions.

Thanks for your comments on Qeios. I just got an invitation to review a manuscript for the journal. It's my first time of hearing of the name. I will think of what to do. Thank you

thank you for these information

I received an invitation to review a paper on Qeios, and it felt a bit strange, especially with no editors involved! However, the inclusion of AI makes it interesting, and perhaps it can open new doors.

I have received several invitations! It's good that we started this exchange here. Very helpful. I was reluctant to accept because it's pre-print and there are no editors!

I received an invitation to review a paper on this platform. The paper is well written, the statistics were well done, and the discussion and conclusion aligned to the findings. I am, however, not a subject matter expert in the field. How did the AI choose me as a potential reviewer?

Upon receiving an invitation to review a paper on Qeios, I hesitated and conducted a search to verify its authenticity, given the absence of an editor. After reading the discussion and answers, I have decided to decline the invitation. Thank you for this insightful discussion.

Who still have time for this kind of request? I also recieved an invitation and promptly declined.

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.

There is neither limit to contribution to knowledge nor platforms through which knowledge can be reviewed, critiqued and displayed. A researcher is not validated by the platforms through which he displays his contributions to knowledge, but rather validated by the impacts of his research efforts on the society. Many platforms researchers are using today to display their findings were neglected in the past.

Upon receiving an invitation I am here to read discussion. Based on the discussion I am deciding to decline

I have two preprint research articles already reviewed and published in Qeios. The preprint experience has been very encouraging and helpful. The 10 to 12 reviews received per preprint article helped me to revise my manuscript before sending them for publication in standard journals later. I recommend Qeios for every budding researcher

I think it is necessary to support new approaches and using AI. This will support impartiality. Personal network, fees and politics may play a role in publication acceptances. However, this approach can lead to more fair elections.

Thank you for this discussion

I have been enlightened

Thank you so much. I just received an invitation to review in Qeios and your discussion helped me a lot

I have received an invitation to review for Qeios.I will explore the experience by accepting it

I'm here reading comments but i think once is not predatory journal, it is good to explore new grounds. I may accept their invitation.

I think a lot is revealed by the fact they have a Free and Pro plan (https://www.qeios.com/plans). As much as I understand it is more of a service than a journal. It helps you get relevant comments from knowledgeable experts. All good, but these experts provide free work. That is, someone pays the platform to find reviewers who get nothing (OK, their reviews get DOIs and are public, but it's still free work in my opinion). Very smart, but just a new publishing business model.

I think they are trying to increase recognition by sending referee invitations. Most of the comments I read are attempts to understand what Qeios is for those who receive invitations.

It seems quite interesting open access FREE platform, but the "pro" plans are showing the bussiness: what is the meaning of the "Reviewer Recruitment Service [ONLY] on your first paper"? Strange; a pity, cause it looks quite original!

I have reviewed something for them, and get invitations often since, but three troubles present for me. One is that I have a lot of reviewing to do for other outlets, already. Another is that the quality of the submissions that I have seen have been hit and miss, some OK, some not ready for expert review, and rather the authors need to develop many skills.This trouble goes for most of academic writing, however, as student coaching from faculty is often also hit or miss, with inadequate constructive support being the norm. The third problem is related to the second, in that the relative ease in publishing has lowered scholarly standards and adds to the background noise, Rather than address the problems inherent in publish or perish, leading to plagiarism and self-plagiarism (publishing what is effectively the same paper in multiple different outlets with editing and by rearranging named authors and so on), and generally noise, with poeple who do publish and move forward not necessarily the most deserving, and with everyone else stuck focusing on publishing when most of the work as scholars should often be in reading (!) and thinking (!!) and teaching (!!!) such as supporting student skill development in becoming better writers and researchers rather than taking the path of least resistance, paying to publish as is now the norm such as in Frontiers and so on...

I agree with Jeffrey White . People in charge should pass the articles for a preliminary filter previously to require a peer revision. I reviewed an article once, though I rejected further requirements because of lack of quality or relevance.