Peer-Reviewed Biohacking Journal

Thoughts on the creation of an open-access peer-reviewed journal for biohackers?


  • I think this would be great. It could be a resource for people interested in learning about biohacking, improve safety, and serve as a repository of information. But please, no paywalls!
  • This is a great idea seance it will make the communities research be a bit more credible in papers/study’s
  • What do you mean by peer-review? Certainly you can have a journal, I doubt you would find it to gain any credibility in academic circles, if that's what you're after. Biohacking by its very nature is something done outside of the dominant institutions.

  • Still, I think peer reviewing would benefit this community. Credibility to non-biohacking academic circles would be nice, but having a peer reviewed journal would be beneficial to us as well. The Biohack forum is nice but it isn't very official and nothing is peer reviewed. There's no guarantee what you're reading is valid. This could be a step in the right direction.

  • I like this idea. An underground online open source journal where you can publish protocols and results and have them critically evaluated. Even if none of the reviewers are phD scientists, it still increases the quality of DIY biohacking through peer review.

    Like @trroyyc said, increased credibility in academic circles would be nice, but wouldn't need to be the main focus. The main focus would be increasing the quality of Biohacking literature and resources out there. I would love to be able to cite a peer reviewed protocol on magnetic implants in a DIY paper or write a paper about producing insulin via E.coli bioreactors and have it critically reviewed by peers in biohacking circles.

    PM me if you move forward with this, I'd be interested in getting involved.

  • Can you elaborate on your initial post here? Comments have already run the gamut from protocol repository to zine. None of which are actually peer reviewed in as much as there isn't in this community a pre established infrastructure of collaboration and verification of work.

    The very nature of the grinder ethos lends itself to beingnvery YMMV. How do you purpose to address this and also avoid a cult of personality? Journals usually have non affiliated member review.

    I, for instance, could never be part of a grinder review board without other non Grinders involved. I have my basis, and we don't need any more reinforcement of the bubble. This is a small community that dislikes outside feedback. And outside feedback is the nature of peer review.

    So, what to do?
Sign In or Register to comment.