Reviewers are too busy
Invited peer reviewers are volunteering time against their own research and teaching. Manuscripts wait, sometimes for months, simply because the queue is long.
Origins
Almost everything we know today has emerged through research: observation, discovery, experimentation, and the development of new ideas. That process includes failures, and in the context of innovation, they can be as valuable as positive findings. Progress depends on people willing to test new possibilities, learn from what doesn't work, and build on what does.
None of that reaches anyone without peer review. It is the step that keeps published science trustworthy, and it is carried almost entirely by volunteers reviewing manuscripts on top of their own research and teaching. Readmy was built to support that group directly.
The real bottleneck
Quality manuscripts don't stall because there isn't enough good research. They stall because the people equipped to review them are stretched thin, and because the review a manuscript gets can vary widely depending on who has time, and how much of it.
Invited peer reviewers are volunteering time against their own research and teaching. Manuscripts wait, sometimes for months, simply because the queue is long.
Two reviewers reading the same manuscript can walk away with very different impressions, shaped as much by fatigue and time pressure as by the paper itself.
Reviewing rewards a particular way of processing dense, linear text. That leaves capable reviewers, including many neurodivergent ones, working against the format rather than the paper.
Authors and editors often can't see what a review actually checked, only what it concluded. That makes the process harder to trust and harder to improve.
What Readmy is for
Readmy does not replace dedicated, human reviewers, and it does not automate the review process. It gives reviewers and editorial offices a way to move through the structural, repetitive parts of reading a manuscript faster, so their expertise goes toward the judgment only a person can make.
That distinction matters more than speed. A tool that quietly assessed manuscripts would undermine the very trust peer review exists to protect. A tool that helps a qualified reviewer get oriented, faster and with less fatigue, strengthens it.
Readmy never assesses a manuscript's truth, novelty or worth. It has no accept or reject function. The reviewer's judgment is the only judgment that counts.
Readmy's job ends where evaluation begins. It helps a manuscript arrive at a reviewer's desk in a more reviewable state, nothing further.
The goal isn't a faster rubber stamp. It's a more consistent starting point, so review quality depends less on how tired or rushed a given reviewer happens to be.
Manuscripts are not retained or read as-is by downstream processing. Confidentiality during review is treated as non-negotiable.
Where it is being developed
Readmy is being developed with the Journal of Quantum Biosystems Engineering (JQBio), where it is being tested and optimised inside a working editorial process rather than in isolation. Everything published here is general information about that work while it continues.
Editorial processes need technology, and they need it developed responsibly. Editorial offices are the ones accountable for the timely and accurate publication of scientific research, which makes them the right people to decide how any instrument is positioned in their workflow.
Readmy does not replace peer review. It acts on the bottlenecks in it, and the judgment stays with the reviewers and editors who hold it today.
Why structure, not judgment
We all learn differently, yet we share methods we rarely notice. The mind forms connections between what it senses, what it has been taught, and what it has already worked out. Together these become what we experience as logic, emotion and intuition.
Reading a manuscript draws on the same instincts, and it asks a lot of them at once: tracking claims, weighing evidence, following citations, holding the whole argument in mind. Readmy is built around that natural process, surfacing the structural parts of a manuscript so a reviewer's own reading is less effortful, not less necessary.
We respond to stimuli and learn from experience, and learn, too, how to observe and process what is new.
We learn by following rules, from personal conduct to working inside regulated environments.
Repetition teaches, but it also reveals where a process can be made better and more efficient.
We learn through the experience of others, and through storytelling from those we trust.
The Readmy promise
Readmy is not a consumer product, and it isn't trying to be one. It's built alongside the peer reviewers and editorial offices who carry the review process today, to give them a tool suited to the work: faster orientation on a new manuscript, a more consistent starting point across reviewers, and less of the fatigue that erodes review quality over a long queue.
We think that's what responsible AI in scientific publishing looks like: assistive, transparent about its limits, and answerable to the people doing the actual judging. If your journal or editorial office wants to think through how AI should and shouldn't be used in review, we'd like to be part of that conversation.