Free · Open · Peer Review

Science Reviewed.
Not Sold.

Researchers pay publishers thousands while reviewers work for free and the profit leaves science. We cut out the middleman: submit your paper. Skip the ransom.

Submit Your PaperJoin the Review Crew
Papers submitted
8
Reviews completed
12
Saved vs. traditional APCs*
$25,600

*Estimated at $3,200 per paper — a conservative midpoint of typical article-processing charges ($1,000–$12,000).

The Setlist

Three tracks. No hidden fees, no surprise encores.

  1. SUBMIT

    Upload your manuscript, declare conflicts and ethics approvals, pick an open license. Five minutes. Zero dollars.

  2. GET REVIEWED

    Two to three vetted volunteer scientists in your field tear into the work — rigorously, openly, on the record. Every review is signed by default and citable forever.

  3. GET PUBLISHED & AMPLIFIED

    Accepted papers publish openly with their full review record. Commercial potential? The Amp connects you to partners and funders — and revenue flows back to you.

The Old Deal Is A Shakedown

Reviewers are the band. Publishers were just the ticket scalpers. Compare the receipts:

Traditional publishing

$1,000–$12,000

article-processing charge, paid by you

  • Peer reviewers paid $0 for the expertise that makes the product
  • Major publishers report operating margins in the 30–40% range — profit leaves science
  • Reviews vanish into inboxes — no credit, no record
  • Paywalls between the public and the research they funded

Review Slave

$0

no fees. ever. that's the deal

  • Vetted volunteer scientists review openly — every review is a citable, career-credit object
  • Accepted papers publish free with their full review record
  • COPE-aligned ethics: mandatory COI disclosure, IRB checks on clinical work
  • If your work earns money through The Amp, revenue flows back to you

Fresh From The Pit

All papers →
RSP-2026-0005 · ChemistryUnder Review

Rapid Catalytic Upcycling of Mixed Polyolefin Waste to Lubricants

Mixed plastic waste is hard to valorize. We report a tandem catalytic process converting unsorted polyolefin waste to base-oil-range hydrocarbons at moderate temperature, with a life-cycle sketch sug…

  • catalysis
  • plastic waste
  • upcycling
Amy WinehausJul 1, 2026 · 1 reviews
RSP-2026-0004 · NeuroscienceUnder Review

Closed-Loop Neurofeedback Reduces Rumination in a Wellness Cohort

We test whether a closed-loop EEG neurofeedback protocol, delivered as a wellness (non-clinical) intervention, reduces self-reported rumination in a non-patient cohort. In a pre-registered randomized…

  • neurofeedback
  • EEG
  • rumination
Dr. Nina SimoneJun 29, 2026 · 1 reviews
RSP-2026-0002 · Computer ScienceAccepted

A Transformer Baseline for Variant Effect Prediction in Non-Coding DNA

Non-coding variants drive much of the heritability of common disease, yet their functional effects remain hard to predict. We present a compact transformer trained only on public epigenomic tracks th…

  • genomics
  • transformers
  • variant effect
Rita Ora-NguyenJun 19, 2026 · 2 reviews

The Amp · B2B

Your Research. Amplified.

Peer-reviewed work with commercial potential deserves a stage, not a shelf. We broker partnerships, licensing, and funder introductions — and the revenue goes to the researchers who did the work.

Plug In → The Amp