A LETTER FROM THE FOUNDER
Why we built Nabu
A second opinion on the work itself.
A molecular biologist I spoke to described three weeks she would not get back. She was studying molecular changes during cancer progression, and the reviews all agreed: a specific class of molecules shifts as the disease develops. The claim was everywhere, tens of citations deep. So she traced the citations back to the primary data. The finding did not hold. What she had read as settled was one weak study, repeated until it sounded like consensus.
She wasn't surprised. She was tired.
She is not the exception. Every researcher I have spoken to has a version of this: the paper that looked authoritative until they read it closely. At today's volume, the filtering is getting harder, and more of the reading pile is noise.
So we built a second opinion. Nabu reads a paper the way a careful reviewer would, on its methodology, contribution, reporting, and positioning. It also provides trust signals which can impact interpretation of the claims, and a real-world impact potential assessment.
Nabu shows the reasoning for every rating, so you can judge the work yourself. No journal name, citation counts or author affiliations impact the evaluation. How we do that is on the methodology page.
We are not trying to replace peer review. We are trying to give every researcher who has stared at a stack of papers late on a Sunday the same second opinion a trusted colleague would offer. It's available to anyone, applied the same way every time.