Register and share your invite link to earn from video plays and referrals.

ResearchHub
@ResearchHub
The fastest way to fund science. $1.8M+ funded, powered by $RSC. Post an RFP. Discover high quality preregistered proposals. Paid peer review in 10 days.
1 Following    43.2K Followers
Large language models detect methodological errors that human peer review misses in clinical trials Happy to be a part of this exciting study led by @rust_ruslan 🤠 I am far from a true expert on LLMs, but I have to admit that LLMs are way more adept at reviewing the methodological details😎 medRxiv 2026
Show more
Science organizations are either embracing AI or keeping it out of their workflows. @ResearchHub is leaning into AI for writing and reviewing funding proposals, as a complement to human experts, not a replacement.
Show more
Lots of debate this week on whether journals should ban AI in peer review. We actually tested this in our new preprint, and the results were pretty clear to me. For context, I've reviewed for most of the big journals and evaluated 1,000 human reviews as an editor. I love to read and evaluate science. TLDR: From now on I won't do any peer review without AI. For clinical trials, I'd even call human-only review dangerous 🧵
Show more
0
107
1.6K
427
Forward to community
Agree. Coding is getting solved fast, discovery is the hard part 🔬 That's why I like what @ResearchHub is doing, funding real research questions like the airborne disease RFP that's open right now
If I’m investing in frontier AI I would underwrite it mostly on new discovery and its applications like medicine because coding and most of knowledge work is quickly being saturated by sub-frontier models.
Show more
Stop 👏 using 👏 AI 👏 detectors If something is good, it’s good. If it’s bad, it’s bad. Whether AI helped write it doesn’t change that. Nobody asks today if you used a calculator when you got the right result. Judge the quality. Plus, AI detectors don’t even work (or the Declaration Of Independence was written by AI)
Show more
Editorial decisions for the @RHubJournal are made by the market, not an editorial board If patrons of science believe a preregistration on @ResearchHub is worth funding, then it is automatically accepted for publication as a registered report!
Show more
SciCon shooter is a fun game to play and this is a great way to help accelerate science
Introducing Funding Pools on ResearchHub Want to fund research but don't want to choose just one proposal? You can now contribute to an entire RFP and help build a larger budget for its strongest research proposals. Add to a pool:
Show more
@VitalikButerin We’re funding research on this through an open-science RFP. • If you work on airborne disease defense, apply with an open proposal. • If you want to back it, add to the funding pool.
Show more
This will be a growing challenge for authors. At @ResearchHub we regularly received reviews that were longer than the manuscript itself. Whether a review was written with AI is secondary. What we need is an agreement on what is expected from authors. And obviosuly with AI we can have way more detailed reviews now! I am totally ok with a preprint co-existing with its reviews. I do not think authors should be expected to do every requested experiment, or even be asked for new experiments at all, unless a key control is missing. The preprint, the reviews and any follow-up experiments can simply co-exist to give the maximum context to the reader/AI agent Historically it has been a flex to do every experiment a reviewer asks for, but I personally do not see the logic. I never received funding for those experiments, and I may not even want them in my manuscript.
Show more
Introducing our SciCon 2026 keynote speaker: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya! NIH Director, former Stanford professor, and author of 170+ peer-reviewed papers. 🗓 December 10 📍 San Francisco
Show more
OpenAI posted this on Tuesday. By Wednesday there was a $44,220 protocol on ResearchHub to test it in human iPSC neurons, reviewed and open to fund. The lead took 32 minutes. Testing it is still the slow part, and that's the part we're working on.
Show more
> thousands of agents > ~40,000 scientific papers read > 32 minutes > found new potential mechanisms worth investigating for Parkinson-like neurodegenerative diseases work that would have taken human researchers months to a year, done in just 32 minutes i genuinely don't think people understand what is coming for biotech
Show more
0
93
4.2K
269
Forward to community
Our fifth annual SciCon is coming to San Francisco on December 10. An invite-only gathering of funders, researchers, and AI in science leaders for a day on how research gets funded, evaluated, and replicated. Invitations are going out now. Keynote announcement coming soon.
Show more
The @ResearchHubF used our new AI assistant to: → Draft an RFP focused on hair loss research → Generate proposals in response to the RFP Now, they're inviting the community to review, comment on, and refine the proposals.
Show more
Two weeks without mobile internet cut daily screen time from 314 minutes to 161. Two weeks after the block lifted, it was back to 265. Mental health gained most (d=0.56), sustained attention least (d=0.23, randomized).
Show more
From @TimDraper's DeSci essay published earlier this month The Draper Equation: "The likelihood that a society needs to rethink an industry is proportional to the number of people benefiting from existing theories without change."
Show more
This is one of the most interesting fundable proposals on @ResearchHub. It's a joint collaboration between Harvard & UW-Madison laying the groundwork to use neutrinos for faster telecommunication. Through the Earth, not around it! ⤴️🌎 🙂‍↔️ ➡️🌎 🙂‍↕️
Show more
Science is changing. The systems that support it need to change too. At #CatalystNYC#, Dr. Bridget Turaga of the @NSF explains why meeting today's scientific challenges will require new tools, new partnerships, and new models for turning research into real-world impact.
Show more
Science is splitting into two camps on AI: those looking to restrict it, and those looking to integrate it. We're in the second camp. Scientists spend months assembling grant applications that run hundreds of pages. We'd rather they spend that time doing science. 1⃣We find the best matched researchers for an RFP using in-house AI tools 2⃣Read their ORCID & published work 3⃣Auto-generate a preregistered proposal draft for the RFP on @ResearchHub 4⃣Send it along with an outreach message The science and the submission fully belong to the researcher. We want to lower activation energy, but not the bar.
Show more
I asked Astra to look through my published science, identify new directions, and draft five NIH R01 proposals -- the multiyear, $1M-$2M grants that support much of academic biomedical science. In about one hour, using roughly $20 in compute, it produced entirely reasonable proposals. They were well grounded in my work and structured to appeal to study section reviewers. They looked very similar to what I would write if my goal were to get another grant. Astra reproduced that logic well. It turned existing work into questions, hypotheses, and experiments that would look familiar and defensible to a study section. The output was immediately recognizable as the work of an experienced academic scientist. If AGI means being able to produce the work of highly trained professionals, this is a clear concrete example. It produced something academic scientists spend a great deal of time doing. Academic medical centers build careers, laboratories, and their finances around this process. Scientists spend years writing these proposals as the next fundable extension of their work.
Show more