Inspect the work.
Follow the question through its methods, data and analysis.
Find an experiment.
Make it your next discovery.
Explore published research, follow the methods and data, and start a replication or an extension of your own. Keep your work connected to the paper that inspired it.
- Paper
- Viability
- Reproduce
- Extend
- Evidence
- Analysis
How a paper is checked
Follow the registered plan, the recorded runs and the comparison with the published result.
-
Register
Record the protocol, inputs, comparison rules and seeds before the first run.
-
Re-execute
Run the registered analysis again. Record each result and any missing run, with its reason.
-
Adjudicate
Compare the recorded results with the registered criteria. Claims with insufficient evidence remain unresolved.
Research in the journal
The last screen read 306 candidate papers and admitted 0. The ledger holds 5,524 entries. 2,602 real papers are on the record, and 2 of them carry a published analysis verdict.
Read the papers and their evidence without an account.
Build on a paper
A fork is your own research record linked to an existing paper. Use it to repeat an experiment or explore a new question, with your methods and results alongside the original.
Compare the evidence.
Examine repeated results, differences and recorded limitations.
Build on the record.
Use the methods and evidence to shape the next experiment.
Recent papers
Explore 2,602 papers and find a question you want to investigate. Each record brings its methods, available evidence and related work together.
-
From reads to genes to pathways: differential expression analysis of RNA-Seq experiments using Rsubread and the edgeR quasi-likelihood pipeline
10.12688/f1000research.8987.2 pmid:27508061 0 forks opened against it
-
From reads to genes to pathways: differential expression analysis of RNA-Seq experiments using Rsubread and the edgeR quasi-likelihood pipeline
10.12688/f1000research.8987.2 pmid:27508061 2 forks opened against it
-
Identification of HMMR as a prognostic biomarker for patients with lung adenocarcinoma via integrated bioinformatics analysis.
10.7717/peerj.12624 pmid:35036134 0 forks opened against it
-
Key genes associated with prognosis and metastasis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
10.7717/peerj.12493 pmid:35036081 0 forks opened against it
-
Differentially Expressed Genes Reveal the Biomarkers and Molecular Mechanism of Osteonecrosis.
10.1155/2022/8684137 pmid:35035862 0 forks opened against it
-
Screening and Identification of Key Biomarkers in Lower Grade Glioma via Bioinformatical Analysis.
10.1155/2022/6959237 pmid:35035531 0 forks opened against it
-
Development and validation of a novel 3-gene prognostic model for pancreatic adenocarcinoma based on ferroptosis-related genes.
10.1186/s12935-021-02431-8 pmid:35033072 0 forks opened against it
-
Identification of a Novel PPAR Signature for Predicting Prognosis, Immune Microenvironment, and Chemotherapy Response in Bladder Cancer.
10.1155/2021/7056506 pmid:35027921 0 forks opened against it
- Papers on the record
- 2,602
- Forks opened against a paper
- 30
- Ledger entries
- 5,524
- Candidates screened
- 306 (0 admitted)
What the catalogue holds
The journal holds 2,607 records. They are four different kinds of thing, and every record says which one it is before it says anything else.
5 of them are forks, held as records of their own because they were opened from a version of the paper and published under their own identifier. The other 26 forks are recorded against the paper they work on. A fork is not another record, so the fork count on this page is not added to the number of papers.
- Imported papers 2,600
- A paper the journal holds from the corpus, with its canonical record and every version of it. The journal has not analysed it.
- Analysis results 2
- The outcome of a named analysis of the figures a paper printed. The analysis is named, its scope is stated, and it is not a repetition of the paper's experiment.
- Unreviewed forks 5
- Somebody's work on a version of a published record, held against the master it was opened from. No reviewer decision is recorded against it yet.
- Reviewed publications 0
- A record the journal has decided on and published. The decision names the exact version it was made against.
The 2 records the journal has decided on are analysis results: the outcome of a named analysis of the figures a paper printed. No paper and no fork has been decided on. A record that has not been decided is never presented as though it had been.
Reading and submitting are free.
Have a paper to contribute? Explore how to join the journal and share your work.
Source readings and research progress
Explore 24 source readings across 22 papers. Readings identify published results; the execution records show which analyses have been run again.
- Readings held
- 24
- May be opened for review
- 10
- Can be run today
- 0
- Published analyses
- 2
An analysis here is a named check of figures the paper printed, run as an assay and published with its verdict beside it. It is not a repetition of the paper's experiment: the physical protocol behind the figures was not performed again, and the record says so on the paper's own page. 2 papers carry one, of which 2 cover every registered cell.
The collection includes 4 readings using two providers, 20 using two models from one provider, and 0 using one reader. Each paper identifies its readers. Provider diversity alone does not establish independent scientific review.
Compare source readings
18 papers have been read a second time, by a different provider, as a peer-review fork: 36 readings, two for every paper. Where the two readers disagreed about a field that decides the claim, the desk settled it on the sentence the paper itself carries and published the quotation and the reasoning. Disagreements settled that way: 0. Both readers' readings stay on the record. A settlement is the desk reading the paper; it is not a third independent reading.
Results, assessments and commentary
Recorded execution results provide evidence about the documented run. Automated assessments and researcher commentary provide opinions with their authors and sources, alongside the results.
Recorded results
Execution evidenceOutputs from the documented execution, compared with the registered criteria.
2573 ledger events in this layer
Automated assessments
Attributed interpretationModel-generated analysis, attributed to its model and provider. Separate findings keep disagreements visible.
1 model finding recorded
The layer is not re-verified on every page view.
The journal holds 1 recorded automated assessment from MiniMax-M3.1-Flash . A credential is checked against the model when it is used, not on every request, so this layer says it is configured rather than claiming a fresh verification.
Researcher commentary
Attributed interpretationAttributed scientific discussion and interpretation, with the contributor’s recorded affiliations.
0 signed critiques recorded
Research terms explained
Use these definitions to follow a paper from its first record through the work that builds on it.
- Submission
- The author's package: the paper, and everything needed to check it. It is hashed on arrival, so the thing that gets checked is the thing that was submitted.
- Receipt
- The public record that a submission arrived: a receipt identifier, the package hash, minimal public metadata and the timestamp. A receipt is a fact about arrival, not a judgement about the work.
- Record
- Two things, and every page says which one it means. A candidate record is one upstream paper being screened for admission. A ledger record is one permanent entry in the ledger, which commits to the entry before it.
- Verdict
- One of five outcomes — reproduced, reproduced with variance, partially reproduced, not reproduced, or inconclusive because infrastructure — computed by the engine from the evidence. Nobody asserts it. It says the registered comparison rules were met by the evidence that exists. How much of the paper was re-executed is stated separately on the record, because a check of a paper's printed figures is not the same as a repeated experiment.
- Ledger
- A history of recorded events linked by hashes and signatures. Corrections and withdrawals are recorded as new events. The evidence history page shows the current signing and witness arrangements.
- Registered protocol
- The frozen plan: the claim map, the baselines, the run matrix, the numerical criteria, the seeds and models, the comparison code, the exclusions and the retry budget. It is registered before results exist, so it cannot be widened to fit them.
- Run
- One execution of the registered matrix under one seed. A run that produced a result is an observation; a run that did not is a gap.
- Gap
- A registered run that produced no result. It is published as a gap with its own reason rather than quietly dropped, and it counts against the coverage the claim needed.
- Replication
- Running a registered analysis against a paper's published figures and comparing what came back with what the paper printed. A reading, an opinion or a critique is not a replication, and neither is a single assay result: the assay names the check that was run, and the record says how much of the paper it covered.
- DSL
- The small language an analysis is written in. A method becomes a programme that the compiler resolves into a document whose hash goes into the run record. If the catalogue has no operation for a step, the compiler refuses it, and that refusal is the evidence.