# Nature: Preprint platform offers to pay researchers to review papers, but questions remain [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/nature-preprint-platform-offers-to-pay-researchers-to-review-c039fbac) 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. Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source Nature · Article Original source date: Nov 6, 2026 (2026-11-06T00:00:00.000Z). Date basis: Date supplied by the publisher’s feed. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T04:39:05.042Z. First observed: 2026-11-06T13:09:53.167Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-09T04:38:09.342Z. - [Preprint platform offers to pay researchers to review papers, but questions remain](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Limits The article reports that XSci's future depends on attracting authors, but does not establish whether authors will pay for the service at scale. The article does not report a measured evaluation of the quality of XSci reviews; it says XSci does not check that quality before release. ## Open question How will XSci check review quality before reports are released to authors, given that it does not currently perform that check? ## Source-stated XSci charges authors for reviews and pays reviewers according to how quickly they submit feedback. > XSci, which launched in September, will reward a reviewer with US$200 if they send their feedback within five days of accepting the task and $100 if they do so between five and ten days. The fee is covered by other researchers - [Supporting source](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Source-stated Founder Shumiao Ouyang says the service is intended to provide faster comments while compensating reviewers. > The system enables authors to receive comments quickly while compensating reviewers for their time and effort, says Shumiao Ouyang - [Supporting source](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Source-stated Researchers interviewed by Nature say the model's future depends largely on whether XSci can attract authors to its human-reviewing service. > Several researchers interviewed by Nature say that XSci’s business model is interesting, but that its future will depend mostly on whether it can attract authors to use its human-reviewing service. - [Supporting source](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Source-stated The evidence from two other reviewer-payment schemes differs: one reported shorter time to first decision, while another found only a small change in review completion and speed. > 50% of review invitations with a $250 cash reward resulted in a peer-review report in 14 days, compared with 42% of invitations without the fee. Paid reviewers also delivered their work just one day quicker on average - [Supporting source](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Source-stated XSci does not check review quality before reports are released to authors; authors can appeal, and the platform is still working out how planned reviewer-checking tools could be implemented. > XSci currently does not check the quality of the reviews done by the reviewers before they are released to the authors - [Supporting source](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Source and contributor context Nature · Publisher The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred. ## Source media Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading. - [image · Nature](https://media.springernature.com/lw100/magazine-assets/d41586-026-01615-4/d41586-026-01615-4_52436444.jpg) ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Nature Nature publishes research, news, and commentary across the sciences. - [Explore this context](/entities/nature) - [Reference](https://www.nature.com/) - [Reference](https://www.nature.com/nature.rss) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 4769c120-ea12-4859-8e3f-429d84b043e5. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T04:39:05.042Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: 6538b0b991578179b05e5b061c2938b423b6fe645591535428a9fadf9efcee91. Source text hash: 43c7250b374a795cf5c2bb50ab2c673a2aed08aa67ecf832f3efc39a85045001. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-11-09T04:39:05.042Z 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. ## Original source Nature · Article Original source date: Nov 6, 2026 (2026-11-06T00:00:00.000Z). Date basis: Date supplied by the publisher’s feed. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T04:39:05.042Z. First observed: 2026-11-06T13:09:53.167Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-09T04:38:09.342Z. - [Preprint platform offers to pay researchers to review papers, but questions remain](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Limits The article reports that XSci's future depends on attracting authors, but does not establish whether authors will pay for the service at scale. The article does not report a measured evaluation of the quality of XSci reviews; it says XSci does not check that quality before release. ## Open question How will XSci check review quality before reports are released to authors, given that it does not currently perform that check? ## Source-stated XSci charges authors for reviews and pays reviewers according to how quickly they submit feedback. > XSci, which launched in September, will reward a reviewer with US$200 if they send their feedback within five days of accepting the task and $100 if they do so between five and ten days. The fee is covered by other researchers - [Supporting source](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Source-stated Founder Shumiao Ouyang says the service is intended to provide faster comments while compensating reviewers. > The system enables authors to receive comments quickly while compensating reviewers for their time and effort, says Shumiao Ouyang - [Supporting source](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Source-stated Researchers interviewed by Nature say the model's future depends largely on whether XSci can attract authors to its human-reviewing service. > Several researchers interviewed by Nature say that XSci’s business model is interesting, but that its future will depend mostly on whether it can attract authors to use its human-reviewing service. - [Supporting source](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Source-stated The evidence from two other reviewer-payment schemes differs: one reported shorter time to first decision, while another found only a small change in review completion and speed. > 50% of review invitations with a $250 cash reward resulted in a peer-review report in 14 days, compared with 42% of invitations without the fee. Paid reviewers also delivered their work just one day quicker on average - [Supporting source](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Source-stated XSci does not check review quality before reports are released to authors; authors can appeal, and the platform is still working out how planned reviewer-checking tools could be implemented. > XSci currently does not check the quality of the reviews done by the reviewers before they are released to the authors - [Supporting source](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-03442-z) ## Source and contributor context Nature · Publisher The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred. ## Source media Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading. - [image · Nature](https://media.springernature.com/lw100/magazine-assets/d41586-026-01615-4/d41586-026-01615-4_52436444.jpg) ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Nature Nature publishes research, news, and commentary across the sciences. - [Explore this context](/entities/nature) - [Reference](https://www.nature.com/) - [Reference](https://www.nature.com/nature.rss) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: 4769c120-ea12-4859-8e3f-429d84b043e5. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T04:39:05.042Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material\_development. Observation: 6538b0b991578179b05e5b061c2938b423b6fe645591535428a9fadf9efcee91. Source text hash: 43c7250b374a795cf5c2bb50ab2c673a2aed08aa67ecf832f3efc39a85045001. ### uncertain — 2026-11-09T04:39:05.042Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 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. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/c039fbacaaf2fe179ae1b201a694f54f57d358db7e10f822dda54877144a4306/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/nature-preprint-platform-offers-to-pay-researchers-to-review-c039fbac.json)