In academic publishing, we’re used to relying on numbers to tell us whether a paper is “good.” Citation counts, H-indexes, and, of course, the infamous journal Impact Factor have become the standard way we judge scientific quality.

But here’s the problem: none of those metrics actually tell you if a paper is well-designed, clearly written, reproducible, or meaningful.

That’s where Paperstars comes in.

📊 A New Kind of Rating

On Paperstars, researchers rate published scientific papers based on quality, not prestige or popularity.

Each paper receives a 1 to 5 star rating from users:

- ⭐ 1 star = Very low quality

- ⭐⭐ 2 stars = Poor quality, with major issues

- ⭐⭐⭐ 3 stars = Acceptable, but could be improved

- ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4 stars = Solid and well-executed

- ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5 stars = Exceptional work—clear, rigorous, and meaningful

But here’s the twist: you can’t just click a star and move on.

💬 Ratings Require Real Discussion

To help ensure thoughtful, useful feedback, Paperstars requires all ratings to be accompanied by a short written review. That means:

• No “good paper” comments with no context
• No “couldn’t access” reviews cluttering up the score
• No drive-by scoring with no accountability

All ratings are anonymous, so researchers can give honest, critical feedback without fear of professional backlash. In addition, raters can be academically verified (just sign up with your academic email address!), so the system still maintains credibility and trust.

To support high-quality contributions, we guide reviewers with structured prompts like:

• Was the title appropriate and informative?
• Were the methods and analysis sound?
• Did the conclusions match the findings?

This encourages a richer kind of review—one that’s helpful for other readers and for the authors themselves.

⭐️ Open Data? That’s a Star.

Paperstars believes in open science and wants to encourage and reward good practices!

If a paper has publicly accessible data stored in a verifiable, open repository, it receives 1 star —regardless of user reviews. So, for example, even if the paper itself is terrible, it can have at least 1 star if the data is publicly available.

Why? Because open data is a cornerstone of reproducibility and transparency. It’s not just a “nice to have”—it’s essential for building better science.

🧠 Why This Matters More Than Impact Factor

Let’s be honest: a paper published in a high-impact journal can still be deeply flawed. And a brilliant, well-executed study can go unnoticed in a low-impact publication.

Impact Factor tells you where a paper was published—not how good it is.

Paperstars flips that dynamic. It’s not about the journal. It’s about the paper itself.

By focusing on qualitative evaluation, Paperstars aims to:

• Reward rigour, not reputation  
• Give visibility to high-quality work regardless of journal  
• Create accountability through open, researcher-led feedback  
• Reduce reliance on opaque metrics that distort incentives

🌟 What Comes Next?

We're still building. The MVP is in the works, and we're listening carefully to feedback from researchers around the world.

If this resonates with you—if you've ever wished for a way to review and discuss papers honestly, without pressure or politics—we’d love for you to be part of the Paperstars community.

👉 Sign up for updates and early access

👉 Take our quick survey to share what features matter most to you