Science Is Moving Too Fast for the Way We Review Papers

If you’re in science, you must have felt this too.

– You submit a paper, wait for 6 months, get a review of thirty points to address back; once you did all the experiments, it took another 5 months to review the revision
– You have strong thoughts about a paper from the field, but they only live in Slack or lab meeting, you wonder if others are thinking the same
– You get yet another review request when you’re already drowning
– Or worse… you meet Reviewer 2

My last paper had one of those “I remain unconvinced” reviews. No clear error. No specific fix. Just a vague no. That reviewer stays anonymous. Their reasoning stays hidden. And their opinion quietly outweighs months of work where we provided completely open code and data.

That doesn’t feel like good science. And that’s why I made: https://www.jrnlclub.com/

Chrome extension:
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/jrnlclub/onacmdmbdioaniglbgoflinnnckenlmi

Here’s the weird thing: scientists talk about papers all the time.

We just do it in places that don’t last.

– Private Slack threads
– Group chats
– Journal clubs
– Twitter/X
– Email chains

None of that carries over to the next person who reads the paper from the other corner of the world.

So every reader starts from zero. Same questions. Same doubts. Same praise. Again and again.

Meanwhile, knowledge is exploding. AI papers come out daily. Methods evolve weekly. Preprints pile up. And yet peer review still acts like science moves slowly.

It doesn’t anymore.

Why doesn’t science have something like Goodreads?

You might still trust Penguin Random House.
You might still care if a book wins a big prize.

But when a book has hundreds of reviews, and the average rating is solid, that means something. Especially if the reviews explain why.

Papers could work the same way.

That’s the idea behind JRNLClub.

JRNLClub lets scientists review, rate, and talk about papers right where they read them.

You install a Chrome extension.
You open a paper.
A small sidebar shows up.

From there you can:

– Get a quick AI summary so you know what the paper is really saying
– See “Reviewer-style” strengths and tough questions once you review
– Read what other scientists think
– Leave your own review (named or anonymous)
– Rate the paper
– Upvote comments that are actually helpful

No new app to check. No new feed to maintain. Just conversation, attached to the paper itself.

AI isn’t here to replace thinking.

It’s here to lower the friction.

A lot of people don’t comment on papers because it feels like work. AI helps by:

– Summarizing dense writing
– Surfacing obvious strengths and weaknesses
– Helping people put thoughts into words

Once that barrier is lower, more people participate. And when more people participate, we get better discussion.

I’m not trying to “kill journals.”

But I do think we need better discussions than impact factor alone.

Long term, I want:

– Ongoing discussion after publication
– Credit for good scientific thinking, not just authorship
– Visible, accountable reviews
– A shared memory of what the community actually thinks about a piece of science

Science is a conversation.

Right now, we act like it ends at a paper’s acceptance.

It shouldn’t, and it should start even earlier at the preprint.

JRNLClub is early. I want it shaped by people who feel the same pain points I do. Let me know your thoughts!

If you’ve ever thought, “I wish I knew what other scientists really think about this paper…” That’s exactly what I’m trying to build.

You can try it here: https://www.jrnlclub.com/

Chrome extension:
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/jrnlclub/onacmdmbdioaniglbgoflinnnckenlmi

2-minute demo:

Feedback is very welcome.

Unlike Reviewer 2, this conversation is open.