Source fidelity
Does the post accurately represent the cited research?
A reviewer compares the post with the study it cites: the finding, the population, the design and the limitations the authors reported.
The future of science, reviewed in the open.
Researchers share evidence. Qualified peers examine the claims. Readers can follow the reasoning, limitations, and disagreements.
Review reports anyone can read
Limitations and disagreements shown
Reviewers may stay anonymous or sign
Search studies, topics, people…
For youLatest researchClinical practiceMethodologyYour network
EC
Dr. Elena CastroCardiologist
2hEarly results from a multicenter trial on SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
The trial reports a reduction in the composite primary outcome. Here's a summary of the key findings, the limitations and what they could mean for practice.
Original studyDOI linked · Peer-reviewed article · 2026
Source checkedPost matches the cited study · Critical appraisal available
Read review1422812
01Discover
Follow research as posts, explainers and threads, each linked to its source.
Latest researchClinical practiceMethodology
Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with obesityOriginal article · 2025
1.2k12498
The role of inflammation in Alzheimer's disease: new mechanistic insightsVideo explainer · 2025
8426754
02Scoped Review
Each review states what was checked. Review makes the assessment visible; it does not certify a finding as true.
Review status on one post
Source fidelitySource checked · reviewer anonymous
›Critical appraisalReview in progress
›Author responseNot yet posted
›Revision historyVisible to everyone
›03Discuss
Ask, add evidence or object. Every contribution is labeled by type.
Discussion (28)Expert insights (7)Related
PS
Dr. Priya ShahEndocrinology · 2h
These findings match previous studies, but the heterogeneity across patient populations matters here.
24Reply
LF
Dr. Lucas FerreiraEpidemiology · 1h
Agreed. The subgroup analysis in older adults is especially interesting.
04Build What's Next Planned
Find collaborators through the questions you follow. Not in the demo yet.
Start a new collaboration
Research projectFind collaborators for a new study
›Systematic reviewBuild a team for evidence synthesis
›Clinical guidelineWork on best-practice recommendations
›Innovation & translationFrom research to real-world solutions
›Coming to the beta
Short science videos, with the evidence attached
Researchers explain their work in under two minutes. Every video links to its source, and its review status travels with it wherever it’s shared.
LNNeuroscience lab
♥2.1k💬148
Source checked
How memories are replayed during sleep, in 90 seconds
Source · cited study ↗IMImmunology postdoc
♥5.4k💬312
Critical appraisal available
What our vaccine trial found, and what it didn’t
Source · cited trial ↗EPEpidemiology PhD
♥860💬57
Review in progress
Does more screen time mean worse sleep? Reading the data
Source · cited cohort ↗Illustrative preview. Creators, topics and numbers are examples, not real accounts or studies.
How review works
Two different questions, labeled separately
Checking that a post represents its source is not the same as reproducing the results or confirming the conclusion. Querent keeps those apart.
Critical appraisal
What methodological or statistical limitations affect its interpretation?
A reviewer with relevant expertise explains what the design can and cannot support, and where the evidence is uncertain or contested.
Public to every reader
The content of each review, the author’s responses and every revision made to the post.
The reviewer’s choice
Reviewers can stay anonymous to the public or sign their review with their name.
Planned for the beta
Querent will check reviewer credentials privately, kept separate from the identity shown in public.
Illustrative example
See how a claim improves through review
- 1
Original claim
“Treatment X improves patient outcomes.”
- 2
Reviewer feedback
“The study reports an association in an observational cohort; it does not establish a treatment effect.”
Anonymous reviewer · Epidemiology
- 3
Revised claim
“Treatment X was associated with better outcomes in this cohort, but causality remains uncertain.”
- 4
Visible outcome
Claim revised
Reviewer feedback and author response available.
Hypothetical example. “Treatment X” is not a real treatment, and no real study is described.
For reviewers
Why contribute a review?
Improve how evidence is read
Catch overstatements and missing caveats where people actually encounter research.
Put your expertise to work
Apply what you know about methods and your field to the claims that need it.
Take part in useful discussion
Reviews are scoped and structured, and authors can respond in the open.
In the demo Write reviews anonymously or signed. Your profile keeps a record of the reviews you’ve written.
Planned Exporting your review record to ORCID.
Private beta
Join the beta
For researchers
Help shape a more transparent way to share and discuss evidence.
For labs and programs
Explore a pilot for your research group or graduate program.
We only ask for an email address, and we’ll use it only to contact you about the Querent beta.