Nature: Preprint platform offers to pay researchers to review papers, but questions remain

Nature: Preprint platform offers to pay researchers to review papers, but questions remain

Nature reports that XSci, a preprint platform launched in September, pays researchers to review preprints submitted by other scientists. Authors pay for the service; reviewers receive more for submitting feedback quickly. Founder Shumiao Ouyang says the system is intended to get authors comments sooner while compensating reviewers, and argues that it can answer whether a paper has a chance at the journals its authors are targeting. The platform does not publish a journal, and its badge for reviewed preprints is not a promise that a journal will accept them. Researchers interviewed by Nature question whether authors will pay and whether the model can attract enough users. Evidence from other payment schemes is mixed: one study reported a much faster first decision at Biology Open, while a separate experiment found only a small difference in review completion and speed. Researchers also warn that payment needs quality controls. XSci publishing and editorial lead Jeffery Poon says the platform does not check review quality before reports reach authors; authors can appeal if dissatisfied. XSci plans tools to help reviewers check their work, but how those would operate remains unresolved.

Publication: 4769c120-ea12-4859-8e3f-429d84b043e5

attribution — pass: Claims are attributed to the right people: Nature as reporter, Ouyang for XSci's aims and the journal-chance argument, interviewed researchers and Gorelick for doubts and quality-control warnings, and Jeffery Poon for the admission that XSci does not check reviews before release.

“XSci currently does not check the quality of the reviews done by the reviewers before they are released to the authors,” says Jeffery Poon

summary — uncertain: The summary is mostly faithful but has two gaps. First, the question assumes XSci will add a pre-release quality check. The source only says XSci plans tools to help reviewers check their own work and is unsure how to implement them. Smallest repair: ask whether reviewer self-check tools and the appeal process can ensure review quality. Second, the central terms 'preprint' and 'peer review' are not explained in plain language for non-specialists. Optional: XSci also uses AI to find reviewers and offers AI reviews, which is relevant to this stream but omitted.

XSci plans to provide tools to reviewers to help them check their own work, but the team is still working out how that could be implemented in reality, he adds.

date — pass: The displayed original publication date of 2026-11-06 comes from the feed entry. It matches the first-observed date and the neighbouring Nature items dated 06 NOV 26. The text gives no conflicting earlier date.

support — pass: All five claims are stated in the source: the fees and speed-based payouts, Ouyang's stated aim, the dependence on attracting authors, the mixed evidence from Biology Open and Critical Care Medicine, and the lack of pre-release quality checks with an appeal route. The badge characterization fairly reflects Ouyang's statement that journals decide what weight to give it. Optional: note that the Biology Open figures come from a preprint co-authored by Gorelick.

Whether a journal gives them any weight is the entirely the journal’s decision

media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original Nature article, which is the most relevant way for readers to reach the source.