Who We Are
The Manifesto of Artifical Intelligence-Reviewed (AIR) Research
The Peer Review Crisis: A System in Collapse
The Uncomfortable Truth
Every year, thousands of peer-reviewed papers are retracted. Not because they were caught before publication—but because they passed peer review with glaring flaws intact. In 2023 alone, over 10,000 papers were retracted from supposedly rigorous peer-reviewed journals. These weren't minor corrections. These were papers with fabricated data, plagiarized content, statistical impossibilities, and methodological catastrophes that somehow satisfied multiple "expert" editors and reviewers.
Let that sink in: Papers that should never have seen the light of day were approved by the very gatekeepers sworn to maintain scientific integrity.
This isn't a bug in the system. This IS the system.
The Evidence Is Overwhelming
The Retraction Crisis
2010: ~400 retractions
2015: ~2,000 retractions
2020: ~5,000 retractions
2023: ~10,000 retractions
This isn't because science is getting worse—it's because peer review is failing at its most basic function: catching bad science before publication.
The Seven Deadly Sins of Human Peer Review
SIN 1: Unconscious (and Conscious) Bias
Sex Bias: Papers with female-sounding first author names rated lower than identical papers with male-sounding names. Double-blind review increases acceptance rates for women by 7-14%.
Institutional Prestige Bias: Acceptance rates vary by up to 35% based on university prestige alone.
Geographic Bias: Non-native English speakers face rejection rates 15-25% higher than native speakers for equivalent quality work.
SIN 2: Delays Are Inexcusable
Average timeline for traditional peer review: 6-12 months
Month 1: Submit paper
Month 2-4: Looking for reviewers
Month 5-8: Reviewers "get to it when they have time"
Month 9-12: Reviews, revisions, decisions
AIR completes comprehensive evaluation within 2 working days.
SIN 3: Review Is Superficial
What reviewers actually do:
- Citations: 78% check "that appropriate tests were used"
- Only 12% recalculate some statistics
- Plagiarism: 91% don't check at all
- Raw data: Almost never requested
AIR doesn't skim. AI doesn't assume. AI verifies.
SIN 4: The "Reviewer 2" Problem
Survey of 1,000+ researchers (2019):
- 76% reported hostile or unconstructive reviews
- 52% reported reviews that seemed personal
- 64% suspected reviewer was competitor
AIR applies consistent standards to everyone. No personal vendettas. No ego. No bad days.
SIN 5: Gatekeeping and Intellectual Theft
One of the founders of AIR Journals witnessed a professor in a prominent US university systematically rejecting papers from researchers, only to publish similar work himself shortly afterward using the same core ideas.
This wasn't peer review. This was academic theft enabled by a position of trust.
AIR eliminates human access to your ideas before publication. AI evaluates. Humans never see unpublished work until after publication decisions are made.
SIN 6: Perfect Consistency Is Impossible
Studies show human reviewers vary by 20-40% on accept/reject decisions for identical papers.
Submit the same paper to 10 journals? Some will accept. Some will reject. Same paper. Different humans. Different outcomes.
AIR: 0% variation. Submit the same paper 100 times: Same scores. Same feedback. Same decision. 100/100 times.
SIN 7: "Peer-Reviewed" ≠ "Trustworthy"
The public believes "peer-reviewed" means "high quality" and "reliable."
The data says otherwise:
- 10,000+ retractions in 2023 (all peer-reviewed)
- 50-70% of published findings fail to replicate
- Major journals routinely publish seriously flawed papers
If the most elite journals can't catch bad science, what makes anyone think the system works?
Why AIR Research Exists
We Built What Should Have Been Built Decades Ago
The technology to evaluate research objectively has existed for years: AI can verify citations instantly, detect plagiarism comprehensively, assess argument coherence systematically, evaluate methodological rigor consistently, and process papers in hours, not months.
So why did no one build this before?
Because traditional publishers profit from the broken system. They don't pay editors or reviewers (free labor), charge authors $1,500-$3,000 per paper, charge institutions $10,000-$40,000 per journal subscription, and own copyright to research they didn't fund.
We built AIR because the system is broken, and someone had to fix it.
Our Principles
1. Complete Objectivity
AI evaluates content only. No names. No institutions. No networks. No politics.
Your research is judged on what you found and how you found it—nothing else.
2. Comprehensive Verification
100% of citations checked (not spot-checking)
100% plagiarism screening (not 49% of journals)
Systematic quality evaluation (not superficial skim)
Not trusting. Not assuming. Verifying.
3. Respect for Your Time
2 working days from submission to decision.
Not because we're careless. Because AI doesn't procrastinate.
4. Constructive Feedback
Even rejected papers receive detailed, actionable guidance.
No cruelty. No dismissiveness. No vague complaints.
Specific issues. Clear reasoning. Practical recommendations.
5. Author Rights Protected
You keep copyright. Your work is open access. You get a DOI. You're indexed in Crossref, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, AlexOpen.
Your research. Your rights. Maximum impact.
6. Affordable Access
Submission: $10
Publication (if accepted): $140
Total: $150
Compare to traditional journals: $1,500-$3,000+
Who We Serve
Every Researcher Deserves Fair Evaluation
Early-career researchers tired of being dismissed because their institution isn't famous
International researchers facing bias because English isn't their first language
Women in STEM fighting systematic discrimination in acceptance rates
Interdisciplinary researchers whose work doesn't fit neat disciplinary boxes
Graduate students who can't afford 6-12 month delays for their dissertation
Independent researchers without institutional affiliations facing desk rejections
Established researchers who want their work judged on merit, not reputation
Anyone who believes quality should determine outcomes, not politics
If you've ever felt the system was unfair, you're right. And you deserve better.
Our Commitment to You
What We Promise
✅ 2 working days from submission to comprehensive decision
✅ 100% citation verification against 100% of your paper
✅ Complete plagiarism screening using professional tools
✅ Systematic quality evaluation across universal academic standards
✅ Detailed feedback with specific issues and recommendations
✅ Zero bias based on name, sex, institution, nationality, or language
✅ Copyright retained by authors (not transferred to publisher)
✅ Open access publication (CC BY 4.0 license)
✅ DOI for every paper (permanent identifier via https://doi.org)
✅ Automatically indexed in Crossref, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and OpenAlex
What We Don't Promise
❌ We won't accept everything (quality standards matter)
❌ We won't guarantee publication (evaluation is objective)
❌ We won't eliminate all rejections (rigorous review means saying no sometimes)
❌ We won't please everyone (some prefer the old system where prestige mattered)
But we will treat your research fairly—and that's more than the traditional system can say.
No system is perfect, but AIR eliminates the vast majority of mistakes that plague human peer-review.
The Choice Is Yours
350 Years to Get It Right. It Failed.
The peer review system as we know it has existed since 1665 (Royal Society of London).
350 years of evolution. 350 years of refinement. 350 years of tradition.
And yet:
- • 10,000 retractions in 2023 (all peer-reviewed)
- • 6-12 month review times (while AI can do it in 2 days)
- • 20-40% variation in decisions for identical papers
- • Systematic bias against women, non-native speakers, developing countries
- • Gatekeeping by established figures
- • Intellectual theft through review process access
At some point, we have to admit: the emperor has no clothes.
The traditional peer review system doesn't work—it just has institutional momentum.
The Alternative Exists Now
AIR Journals offer:
✅ Objective evaluation by minimum 10,000 AI attention mechanisms
✅ Comprehensive verification (100% citations, full plagiarism screening)
✅ 2 working days from submission to decision
✅ Zero bias (AI evaluates research quality only)
✅ Consistent standards (same evaluation for everyone)
✅ Constructive feedback (specific, actionable, respectful)
✅ Author rights protected (copyright retained, open access, DOI)
✅ Affordable ($150 total)
The technology works. The system is ready. The only question is:
Why would you keep using the broken system when something better exists?
Your Research Deserves Better
For 350 years, researchers accepted the broken system because there was no alternative.
Now there is.