At Qeios, we envision a world where academic publishing is accessible, transparent, and efficient. We're committed to fostering a research community that values open communication, rapid dissemination of knowledge, and constructive feedback.
Researchers publishing and reviewing on Qeios.
Countries contributing to the Qeios community.
Readers exploring new research every month.
Experience a new era of academic publishing—open, fast, and driven by transparent peer reviews.
Submit your paper, and we'll perform AI-assisted pre-checks for non-scientific content and plagiarism. Your paper will be posted on Qeios as a preprint within 1 business day.
We employ custom-built AI to identify and invite the most appropriate peer reviewers, while spontaneous reviewers can also join. All identities and reviews are AI-checked for suitability. The process is fully transparent, with reviewers signing their feedback—posted alongside the article—and disclosing any potential conflicts of interest. Reviews include numerical scores that determine approval and provide readers with a deeper understanding of the paper's value. With this peer feedback, authors can enhance their work by submitting revised versions.
Once your paper secures at least 4 peer reviews with average ratings of 3 out of 5 or higher for overall, clarity, and impact, and 2.5 or higher for novelty, you can opt to publish it as a regular journal article—known as the Version of Record—on Qeios. This version receives the peer-approved label, indicating it has been peer-reviewed and has passed further AI-assisted checks for language quality and adherence to field-specific best practices. Thanks to our AI-assisted peer invitations, the median time to receive the required reviews and get published is just 4 weeks.
Ensuring credibility through transparent, thorough, and rigorous processes.
At Qeios, we maintain a clear separation of roles—peer reviewers alone assess the validity of papers, while our editorial team oversees the peer review process by resolving disputes and handling misconduct cases. This approach eliminates editorial bias, such as blocking critical commentaries or adhering to a publisher's agenda, and ensures the quality of published research. By implementing this structure, we promote a fairer and unbiased academic environment.
Papers on Qeios often receive more than 4 peer reviews. In fact, articles on Qeios boast a median of 10 peer reviews, making it the most peer-reviewed publishing venue globally. In the rare event that additional reviews uncover flaws not recognised by the initial reviewers, causing the overall average rating to drop below 2.5 out of 5, the paper will no longer be considered peer-approved. This unique, continuous quality assurance process ensures that the research published on our platform remains trustworthy over time.
Our robust reporting system allows both authors and reviewers to report any misconduct by reviewers or authors. These reports are carefully analysed by Qeios' editorial team, with decisions made in strict accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines. This process ensures the integrity of all content on Qeios, encompassing both articles and peer reviews, and contributes to maintaining the trust and reliability of our platform.
Our mission is to transform academic publishing from a system that is opaque, frustrating, slow, and expensive, to one that is trustworthy, enjoyable, fast, and affordable.
We've embraced Open Science to the fullest extent—not just open access and open peer reviews, but also open identities. The entire review process and communication between authors and reviewers happens live on Qeios. There are no backrooms. The open evaluation by a median of 10 peers per article reveals the true value of research. Good research gets praised, and flaws are spotted faster. Our unique rating system offers readers and evaluators a more precise measure of research quality.
On Qeios, approval decisions rest entirely with reviewers, eliminating editorial biases. This removes a major source of frustration for authors, ensuring papers are valued solely on their merits. Furthermore, authors can update their articles based on valuable peer feedback, ensuring their research is in top shape and fostering continuous learning for the entire research community.
Thanks to our AI-assisted process for identifying the best peer reviewers and the elimination of lengthy editorial communications, we have created an exceptional peer review system that ensures high-quality, rigorously vetted research is published promptly, with a median time of just 4 weeks from submission.
Our Pro plan—available for just £24.99/month—ensures articles are sent to peers for feedback using our AI-assisted invitation process. For the price of one average APC, you can have Qeios Pro and unlimited publishing possibilities for 10 years. Importantly, authors can publish completely free if their articles attract spontaneous reviewers and already meet language and field standards.
The review process happens behind closed doors, concealing any misbehaviour. Anonymising reviewers' identities only worsens this issue, leading to a lack of accountability and transparency. This secrecy allows biases and COIs to go unchecked and makes it difficult to ensure fair evaluation. As a result, trust in the peer review process is undermined, hampering the advancement of scientific knowledge.
The traditional peer review system often leads to quality papers being rejected and subpar ones being accepted. Editorial decisions introduce biases that overshadow the actual merit of a paper, such as blocking critical commentaries or adhering to a publisher's agenda to boost Impact Factors (IFs). This is a major source of frustration for authors.
If your paper isn't desk-rejected, it will typically take several months to get published. Effective research communication can't afford such delays, as evidenced by the urgent needs during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Open access publishing relies on hefty Article Processing Charges (APCs) ranging from £1,000 to £9,000 per paper. This not only represents a significant financial burden but also creates poor incentives for publishers, leading to more subpar papers being accepted to maximise revenue.
To eliminate editorial bias, reviewers alone determine the validity of papers. Our approach also frees editors from routine tasks like checking for language appropriateness, plagiarism, and field best practices—areas where our advanced AI excels. This enables our editors to focus on enhancing Qeios and overseeing the peer review process by resolving disputes and handling misconduct cases.