‘Goodreads for Science’: How Paperstars reimagines the way science should be judged

Paperstars was developed to help refocus research culture on doing good science, rather than on where papers are published. Founded by Danny Schnitzler and Jenna Stephen, the platform aims to decouple research quality from journal prestige and give scientists a quick, constructive way to signal which papers really matter. Here, we talk to Danny to learn more about this new initiative:

What sparked the idea for Paperstars?

Paperstars really grew out of my PhD, when I started to realise that my expectations of academia didn’t quite match reality. I went in wanting to do science, but I found myself spending a huge amount of time worrying about where to publish, how often, and what that would mean for my career.

At some point it really clicked that, as practising scientists, we waste so much of our time not doing science, but instead worrying about publication and publication metrics. Paperstars is basically my response to that frustration — a way to uncouple scientific quality and integrity from where something happens to be published.

 “we waste so much of our time not doing science, but instead worrying about publication and publication metrics.”

Was there a moment when you thought: this needs to exist?

There was definitely a breaking point. I remember reading yet another paper that was being cited and taken seriously and just thinking: “Am I crazy? This is bad, right?”

It wasn’t one big dramatic moment, but that feeling built up. I already had these rumblings of not wanting to play the publication game, and that experience pushed me from complaining about the system to trying to challenge it by building something.

So what is Paperstars — in your own words?

I usually describe it as “Goodreads, but for science.”

Basically, Paperstars exists so that we can go back to doing science and not worrying about publication metrics.

Paperstars is a quick, informal way to rate and review scientific papers – both preprints and published work. The idea is to create a visible quality signal that doesn’t depend on journal prestige or citation counts. Star ratings are easy to interpret, without pretending they’re a perfect or all‑encompassing metric.

A big part of this is that Paperstars is meant to be a neutral, non‑adversarial space. There are sites where, if your paper ends up there, something has gone really wrong. Paperstars isn’t that — it’s meant to be a constructive, everyday tool.

“Paperstars exists so that we can go back to doing science and not worrying about publication metrics.”

 

Who is it for, and how do you see people using it?

Right now, it’s mainly for early‑career researchers (ECRs) – because that’s where this frustration with the current publishing ecosystem is most pronounced. People who care about doing careful, honest science, but are worried about being disadvantaged if they don’t optimise for impact factors.

In practice, it’s designed as a lightweight extra layer on what people already do. You read a paper – maybe for your own work, a journal club, or to write a preLight – and you spend another 30 seconds leaving a rating and a short review. Over time, those ratings become a signal for other researchers, and hopefully for institutions and funders too.

What impact do you hope Paperstars will have?

In the short term, the big challenge is simply awareness — making Paperstars part of everyday research workflows. When I tell ECRs about it, they get very excited, which mostly tells me they’ve never heard of it before.

In the long run, I’d love to see ratings like this taken into account in funding and promotion decisions – or even included directly in citations. More than anything, it’s about encouraging more conscientious citing, and removing the tension between good scientific hygiene and career progression. Those two things shouldn’t be competing.

What has surprised you most so far?

How supportive the scholarly infrastructure community is. It’s a small world, but people are genuinely helpful and collaborative. Despite working on different projects, there’s this shared feeling that we all just want science to be better.

What would you love preLighters to do after reading this?

Rate and review the last paper you read that really made you think – whether it’s a preprint or something that’s oddly under‑cited. If you’ve already read it, thought deeply about it, and maybe even written a preLight, then adding a Paperstars rating is just another 30 seconds that turns that judgment into a visible, community‑driven signal.

“…adding a Paperstars rating is just another 30 seconds that turns that judgment into a visible, community‑driven signal.”