vs OpenReview
Science AI Journal vs OpenReview
We like OpenReview. Here is where we differ — and where they are still the right choice.
OpenReview is excellent at what it does
OpenReview pioneered publicly visible review discussion for ML and CS conferences. The threaded comment UI, anonymity handling, and integration with program-chair workflows at NeurIPS, ICLR, and ACL are best-in-class. If you are submitting to a venue that runs on OpenReview, submit to OpenReview.
We are not a venue replacement and we do not want to be. What we run today is the review layer — the 8-agent report on your PDF, a pre-check, and a journal finder that points at third-party venues.
Where Science AI Journal is different
We target the gap OpenReview does not fill: a calibrated review that comes back in minutes, not months, and that works across scientific disciplines — not only the subset on OpenReview's conference list.
- Speed: a full report in under 15 minutes; OpenReview cycles are tied to conference calendars (weeks to months).
- Discipline coverage: 10+ fields; OpenReview is dominated by CS and ML venues.
- Calibration: our 7 language-model agents are calibrated by retrieval on 69,000 real human peer reviews from 19+ platforms; the prior-publication agent is a deterministic lookup. OpenReview uses human reviewers.
- Publication route (planned, not open): a journal route with the review report attached is planned. It is not accepting submissions. OpenReview is primarily a review record for a conference venue.
- Transparency: you get every agent's individual report, not a summary score — and you get it whether or not you ever submit anywhere. OpenReview publishes reviewer threads but authors still depend on venue chair decisions.
When you should use OpenReview instead
We will actively point you to OpenReview if your work is a fit for its strengths.
- You're submitting to a specific ML/CS conference that uses OpenReview.
- You want real human reviewer discussion threads with rebuttal cycles.
- Your field's publication norm is 'post to OpenReview, discuss for weeks, finalise'.
When Science AI Journal is the better fit
Ours is the right choice when you value speed and a structured, multi-disciplinary second opinion over a conference thread.
- You need a review before a grant deadline or a conference abstract deadline.
- You want a pre-submission check before sending to a paid closed journal.
- You work outside CS — medicine, biology, engineering, humanities.
- You want each reviewer's report separately, so you can see which concern came from which dimension of the paper.