Lyncei
Sign inExplore the demo

The future of science, reviewed in the open.

The social network for science, with expert review built in.

Explore the demo Join the beta waitlist

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
Dr. Priya ShahEndocrinology · 2h

These findings match previous studies, but the heterogeneity across patient populations matters here.

24Reply
Dr. Lucas FerreiraEpidemiology · 1h

Agreed. The subgroup analysis in older adults is especially interesting.

View 4 more replies

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
›

Why now

Science has moved to the feed. Its rigor hasn’t.

In June 2026, Nature’s editors wrote that young audiences now get their news mainly from video-first platforms, that science videos there rarely credit their sources, and that platforms should flag claims that haven’t been verified. Lyncei is built for exactly that.

Read the Nature editorial
  • Science videos rarely credit their sourcesEvery reviewable post links its source
  • Creators with undisclosed financial interestsConflicts declared before any review
  • Unverified claims look like verified onesReview labels on every post, never set by likes

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.

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. Lyncei keeps those apart.

Source checked

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.

Critical appraisal available

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

Lyncei will check reviewer credentials privately, kept separate from the identity shown in public.

Fair by design

Reviews judge the work, not the person

Knowing who wrote something changes how reviewers judge it. Lyncei uses two kinds of review, depending on what’s being reviewed.

Planned

Before you publish

Manuscripts, preprints and draft posts

Double-anonymous: reviewers don’t see who you are, and you don’t see who reviewed you. It stays private, and you decide what to make public.

In the demo

After it’s out

Posts and videos about published work

Your face and name are part of a video, so the review checks the explanation against the source, with safeguards against bias.

Safeguards

  • In the demoNo popularity signals. Likes, views and followers are hidden while a review is written.
  • In the demoStructured, scoped reviews. Each review says exactly what was checked: source fidelity, methods or clinical use.
  • In the demoConflicts declared. Every reviewer states any conflict of interest before publishing.
  • PlannedReviewers assigned, not self-selected. So well-known creators don’t get more, or kinder, reviews.
  • PlannedMore reviewers for wider reach. Posts seen by many people get more than one review.
  • In the demoReviewer identity protected. Reviewers can stay anonymous or choose to sign.

Illustrative example

See how a claim improves through review

  1. 1

    Original claim

    “Treatment X improves patient outcomes.”

  2. 2

    Reviewer feedback

    “The study reports an association in an observational cohort; it does not establish a treatment effect.”

    Anonymous reviewer · Epidemiology

  3. 3

    Revised claim

    “Treatment X was associated with better outcomes in this cohort, but causality remains uncertain.”

  4. 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

What you get as a reviewer

Peer review is skilled work that usually goes unseen and uncredited. On Lyncei, it counts.

In the demo

Credit you can show

Every review you complete adds to the reviewer record on your profile, including the anonymous ones.

In the demo

Your choice of visibility

Stay anonymous, or sign a review to put your name on it and build a reputation in your field.

In the demo

Reviews that fit your week

Short, scoped reviews of a single post: one claim, one method or one source, not a full manuscript.

Planned

A record beyond Lyncei

Export your review activity to ORCID, so it appears next to your publications.

Founding reviewers in the beta also help write the review guidelines and decide which features come next.

Partnerships

Build it with us

We’re looking for founding partners for the beta. These are pilots we want to design together, not finished products, and partners help decide what gets built first.

Universities and graduate programs

A place for students and faculty to share research and learn to review it well.

  • A beta cohort for your program
  • Visible credit for the reviews students write
  • Training in transparent review and science communication

Research institutes and labs

A public channel to explain your findings, with the evidence attached.

  • Posts and short videos linked to your papers
  • Expert review of how your work is explained
  • Private spaces for internal review, explored with pilot partners

Journals and publishers

Bring the conversation about your papers to where readers already are.

  • Author explainers linked to the DOI
  • Expert discussion kept separate from your editorial decisions
  • Corrections and retractions shown on every linked post

Become a founding partner

Tell us who you are and we’ll reach out to talk about a pilot. No commitment.

Private beta

Join the beta

For researchers

Help shape a more transparent way to share and discuss evidence.

For universities, institutes and journals

We’re looking for founding partners to design pilots with us.

See partnerships

We only ask for what’s in these forms, and we’ll use it only to contact you about the Lyncei beta and partnerships.