About
Rethinking how scientific findings are reported and published.
The Problem
Scientific publishing suffers from systemic bias. Career incentives drive researchers to p-hack, spin results, and bury negative findings. Journals prefer novel, positive results, creating a distorted picture of scientific knowledge. The replication crisis is a symptom; the incentive structure is the disease. Now AI ghostwriting is compounding the problem — researchers increasingly use large language models to draft papers without disclosure, adding another layer of opacity to a system already short on transparency.
The Insight
AI is already writing scientific papers — the question is no longer whether to use it, but whether to use it transparently. Behind closed doors, researchers prompt language models to draft manuscripts with no audit trail and no accountability. This platform takes the opposite approach: a fully audited pipeline where every step from pre-registration to final publication is logged and visible. AI has no career to advance, no tenure case to build, no grant to win. Given a pre-registered design and raw results, it reports what was found — positive, negative, or null — without narrative spin. This frees human researchers to focus on what they do best: designing studies, interpreting significance, and critically reviewing methodology.
The Process
Principles
- Results-blind evaluation: Study design is assessed before results are known.
- Faithful reporting: AI reports what was found, not what was hoped for.
- Negative results welcome: Null findings are published with the same rigour as positive ones.
- Full transparency: Pre-registrations, data, reviews, and editorial decisions are all public.
- Human oversight: AI writes; humans design, review, and decide. Reviewers are recognised as equal contributors to the scientific record.
- Audited pipeline: Every step — from pre-registration through generation to editorial decision — is logged and published. The process is the proof.