Peer review plays a key role in the validation of scientific progress, but the current system of having journals assess papers for both their technical quality and their importance is inefficient – sound science is often rejected because the paper is not novel enough.

Axios Review solves this problem by putting papers through rigorous external peer review and then referring them to the appropriate journal. When a journal asks the authors to revise and submit, the journal has effectively said that: i) the paper is within their scope, ii) that it is not fatally flawed, and iii) that it could be published in their journal.

The Axios Review process effectively eliminates rejections on the grounds of novelty and significantly reduces the chances of rejection on quality. It’s similar to getting a ‘reject, encourage resubmission’ decision from the journal itself; for comparison, about 75% of resubmissions to top tier evolution journals get accepted.

Authors submitting to Axios Review can have the reviewers comment on the suitability of their paper for any journal they choose, allowing them to aim for a high profile journal without the effort of formally submitting.

Most papers evaluated by us will be referred to an interested journal within 4-6 weeks, and delays from repeated rejection and resubmission can be eliminated. Authors will thus gain greater certainty over the length and outcome of peer review, and time from article completion to publication will be reduced.

Our independent reviews will focus primarily on the quality and deficiencies of the paper, and not on fit to a journal’s quality threshold and scope. This format will improve the quality of feedback authors receive from the peer review process.

Once referred to a journal, 80% of papers reviewed by Axios are accepted for publication, and half of these do not go back out for external review.