vs OpenReview

Science AI Journal vs OpenReview

We like OpenReview. Here is where we differ — and where they are still the right choice.

< 15 min
Median decision time
8
Agents per paper
23K
Calibration reviews
10+
Disciplines

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. We are a journal.

Where Science AI Journal is different

We target the gap OpenReview does not fill: a peer-reviewed open-access journal venue that ships a decision in minutes, not months, and that works across all scientific disciplines — not only the subset on OpenReview's conference list.

  • Speed: decision in < 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 agents are trained on 23,000 real human peer reviews from 15+ platforms. OpenReview uses human reviewers.
  • Publication pathway: we issue a journal-style citation with ScholarlyArticle JSON-LD + optional DOI. OpenReview is primarily a review record for a conference venue.
  • Transparency: every accepted paper ships with the full 8-agent report attached, CC BY 4.0. 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, multi-disciplinary review, or a persistent journal-style record 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 a permanent citation record with full report attached.

Frequently asked questions

Different strengths. A calibrated, well-resourced human reviewer on your exact sub-topic outperforms our agents on nuanced theoretical contributions. Across the full 23,000-review calibration set, our agents match human editorial decisions 83% of the time. An overworked, off-topic human reviewer is a coin flip at best — we beat that comfortably.
Submit a manuscriptRead the engineering blog

Command palette

Jump anywhere, run any action.