Compare papers on equal terms.
Every paper evaluated against the same rubric, regardless of journal. No more relying on where it was published to guess whether it's good.
Know what's worth reading.
Evidence-based quality evaluation for any research paper.
Nabu doesn't summarize or replace your judgement. It surfaces evidence to tell whether the work is sound; so your reading time goes to the papers that earn it.
SEE IT IN ACTION
Product preview · coming soon
The first article-level quality signal that doesn't depend on journal prestige or citation counts.
Use it before you cite.
Use it before you build on a finding.
Use it before you weight evidence in a review.
WHAT YOU GET
Read less, but better.
Dimension-level scores with rationale tell you which papers earn a full read and which don't, before you commit the hours.
Quality-weighted evidence, not journal-weighted.
A consistent quality signal which accounts for multiple methodologies and disciplines. Designed to support systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses.
A COMMON LANGUAGE FOR QUALITY
Contribution.
Does this paper move the field forward?
Craft.
Is the methodology sound for the question asked?
Clarity.
Is the work clearly and precisely told?
Context.
Is the scope of the conclusions defensible?
Plus, a Reliability indicator and signals on Potential Impact.
See the methodology →WHEN THE PRESTIGE SIGNAL GETS IT WRONG
Three cases where Nabu changed the answer.
Top-quartile journal · 1,200+ citations
0.0
/5.0Weak
Craft concerns
Conclusions extend beyond what the experimental design can support. Sample selection introduces a confounder the discussion doesn’t address.
Mid-tier journal · 18 citations
0.0
/5.0Very Good
No concerns
Methodologically sound replication of an earlier high-impact result, with a meaningful extension to a new population. Cited downstream by 6 papers in the past year.
High-impact journal · later retracted
0.0
/5.0Poor
Red flag
Flagged Red on initial evaluation — methodology issues consistent with later-published correction. Retracted 14 months after publication.
VALIDATED AGAINST EXPERT REVIEW
Strong inter-rater reliability with expert evaluators in initial validation.
Multi-agent adjudicated review, with editorial synthesis.
No conflicts of interest. No author, affiliation, or venue visible during evaluation.
FOR INSTITUTIONS
For academic & corporate research organisations.
Help lift the quality of what your researchers read, build on and cite across projects.
Talk to us about researcher access →For research leaders and evaluators.
The first article-level evidence-based and auditable quality signal that makes evaluation reform commitments operational.
Talk to us about evaluator access →Evaluate a paper you're citing.
Free during research preview.