In a nutshell

ScienceOpen is a discovery platform with interactive features for scholars to enhance their research in the open, make an impact, and receive credit for it. We provide context building services for publishers, to bring researchers closer to the content than ever before. Our advanced search and discovery functions, combined with post-publication peer review, recommendation, social sharing, and collection-building features make ScienceOpen the only research platform you’ll ever need.

Goals and intentions

ScienceOpen is exploring new ways to open up information for the scholarly community. Data available on research articles are analyzed, and our analysis links articles via authors, citations, keywords, journals and more. Users can further add to the context of an article with comments, recommendations or post-publication peer reviews. Researcher-led topical collections also provide opportunities for discovery and communication.  Feel free to drop us a line and suggest new ways to open the context around your research.


We are committed to Open Science. We believe that free access to knowledge drives creativity, innovation and development. It starts a conversation and stimulates collaboration, discussion and dissent. Our mission is to facilitate open and public communication between academics and to allow ideas to be judged on their merit, regardless of where they come from – open, transparent and fair. We believe that the only way forward is through constructive engagement between all stakeholders in scholarly communication, and that operating within a legal framework will prove to be the most beneficial for all parties

Project status
Review process
  • Review requested by
  • Reviewer selected by
    Editor, service, or community
  • Public interaction
  • Author response
  • Decision
    Binary decision, Other scale or rating
Review policy
  • Review coverage
    Complete paper
  • Reviewer identity known to
  • Competing interests
    Not included
Review features
  • Manuscript hosting
  • Notes

    Reviews should result from an in-depth and thorough evaluation of a research manuscript. Reviews should aim to help readers decide if an article is scientifically sound, meets academic standards and is worth reading in its present form. They can either encompass the entire paper of just a single aspect.

    We do not expect reviewers to decide if a manuscript is “worthy of publication” since it has already been published. Instead, the expert commentaries expressed at ScienceOpen should aim to assist both authors and readers, and improve the value of the associated research. It can be very helpful to others to share experiences in reproducing experiments, methodologies or code.

    Reviewers should guide authors and encourage them to further improve their skills and research. Based on critical reception, authors may publicly engage the reviews and/or comments via the article landing page.

    Peer review guidelines:

  • Review of code or data
  • Eligible reviewers/editors
    Members of the ScienceOpen community that meet certain conditions are able to contribute to the review process in two different ways (see below). These conditions are verified via the non-profit organization, ORCID. Members with at least one publication linked from their ORCID account are able to comment on a paper. Scientific Members and Expert Members with at least five publications linked from their ORCID account are able to write a review and rate an article. We do make exceptions, and users who do not meet these criteria but still wish to perform a peer review should contact the science open team.
  • Tags or badges
  • Number of scholarly outputs commented on
  • No comments yet.
  • Add a comment