Oded Rechavi

q.e.d Science Critical Thinking AI for constructive criticism and science evaluation

That's how you do it: www.qedscience.com

The way to accelerate science is to SLOW it down.

Fewer papers please! We’re drowning in meaningless text.

One GREAT paper per lab per decade is more than enough.

q.e.d 👇

What the hell? No recombination no problem? "These findings challenge the boundary between sex and clonality, revealing a unique evolutionary strategy linking genome architecture, recombination loss, and transmission bias." www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...

“It’s clear you put a lot of effort into it!”

Is that feedback or a condolence?

If you want the truth about your paper, beyond your friends’ opinions, ask q.e.d :)

Please do, and please give me feedback! :)

2. in addition we benchmark everything and reference any claim (and you can go to the references to see if they are accurate or not)

1. It's transparent, the idea is that you'll share the feedback (if you want) and your response to it (if you want), and anyone would be able to see if the comments are on point or not. there are thousands of scientists in the loop commenting on the correctness and the importance of the comments

Not yet, but it's coming!

q.e.d Science Critical Thinking AI for constructive criticism and science evaluation

More on q.e.d on the website: www.qedscience.com

If you’re writing something right now, or if you’re reading something you want to evaluate (or understand), upload the PDF or Doc and see what breaks.

Our q.e.d platform flags weak claims, missing evidence, and logical gaps. Then, when you choose to share your work with the world, if it comes with a “q.e.d inside,” it’s trusted, and other scientists can confidently build upon it.

That’s why we are building q.e.d. Science evaluation should be totally different. In the universe (and university) we’re imagining, you pressure-test your work as you go along, whether it’s a manuscript, a grant, a raw result, or an experimental idea.

Like the genetic code, bitcoin, or national borders, our methods for evaluating science are a "frozen accident": things that were formed from historical circumstances rather than careful design, and that persist not because they are optimal, but because replacing them is extraordinarily difficult.

How your email finds me

Finding an em dash in the rejection email

So happy to hear this! Thanks a lot!

YES!! If you didn't try q.e.d yet - now is the time!

Removing adverbs like ‘strikingly’ and ‘interestingly’ from the manuscript

Journals explaining why it takes 9 months to send back reviews

Please tell me how it works!

Thank you!!

💡 Finally had time to sit with my little team to checkout @cassyni.bsky.social seminar Breaking Biological Barriers by @odedrechavi.bsky.social.
👌 Highly recommended for the curious kind.

Hi, weird! I am adding @qedscience.bsky.social - we'll make sure you can use it asap!

When someone borrows your pipette without asking

Thank you!

Our q.e.d platform whenever someone says they tried to analyze a paper with AI

Actually in our paper we wrote that we think it might not be possible (and presented a challenge)

Thank you very much Ilaria!!

In my hands, it does exactly that! It comes up with a very good summary of what can be improved and helps me review my own notes on articles I need/want to comment, including my own.

Thank you very much Tim! Please tell me how it goes! 🍷