@Faheem_uh: PhD Students - Which journal will accept your paper? Find out using 3 simple steps. 1. Go to https://review-it.ai 2. Up…
Summary
Review-it.ai helps PhD students find journals likely to accept their paper by uploading the manuscript.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 07/01/26, 01:57 AM
PhD Students - Which journal will accept your paper?
Find out using 3 simple steps.
- Go to https://t.co/7s7GkodV2F
- Upload your paper
- 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰-𝐢𝐭 will suggest 10 most relevant journals.
These journals are likely to accept your paper. https://t.co/Pj7XQiwmZc
Similar Articles
@emrullahai: SITES THAT ACADEMICS AND PhD STUDENTS ALWAYS USE BUT DON'T WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW ABOUT. Save this for sure. You don't n…
A list of 11 free academic tools and resources for PhD students and researchers, covering open-access articles, AI search, citation mapping, and fact-checking.
Does submitting to only journals negatively affect research career after finishing PhD? [D]
A PhD graduate asks whether publishing exclusively in peer-reviewed journals (TMLR, JMLR, Neurocomputing) instead of top ML conferences (NeurIPS, ICML) would negatively impact their chances of landing industry research scientist positions.
@xwang_lk: The best preprint servers today: GitHub and OpenReview. The moment you upload your work, people can read it immediately…
A viewpoint praising GitHub and OpenReview as preprint servers that enable immediate reading and open discussion without gatekeeping.
Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Tool
The paper introduces the Paper Assistant Tool (PAT), an agentic AI framework for deep scientific review that uses inference scaling to identify mathematical errors and other flaws, achieving a 34% improvement in recall over zero-shot methods. Pilot deployments at STOC and ICML demonstrate its ability to catch critical errors before submission, easing the burden on human referees.
Gaming AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Poses New Risks to the Scientific Community
A new study demonstrates that AI-assisted peer review is vulnerable to low-cost manipulation via superficial rephrasing of paper abstracts, significantly inflating AI-generated review scores and potentially biasing human editorial decisions, highlighting the need for safeguards.