AI-assisted reviewer-style analysis

Before the real referee, we take a look.

More than language polish: AI-assisted academic review, methodology analysis, and up-to-date literature context to improve your submission readiness.

New: after Scenario A review, we can surface journal-fit suggestions (with quartile notes) from our catalog — confirm on each journal site before submitting.

Evaluate your first manuscript free

NO CREDIT CARD REQUIRED — your first review is free. Sign up and upload your manuscript.

Free tier: peer review only, 800–6000 words, one per account (fair-use rules apply). Longer manuscripts are quoted at standard paid rates after upload.

~50%

Lower desk-reject risk

~5 min

Typical turnaround

$29

Starting from

Review reportCompleted
80

Publication-readiness score

Methods

85%

Literature

72%

Writing

90%

Statistics

65%

CONSORTPubMedCrossrefSemantic Scholar
NATURE PORTFOLIO
ELSEVIER
SPRINGER NATURE
PUBMED
CROSSREF
SEMANTIC SCHOLAR
CONSORT
STROBE
PRISMA
NATURE PORTFOLIO
ELSEVIER
SPRINGER NATURE
PUBMED
CROSSREF
SEMANTIC SCHOLAR
CONSORT
STROBE
PRISMA

Features

What do we offer?

Aligned with the upload flow: file prep, analysis, and output in one place.

Three-slot upload

Add your main manuscript as PDF, DOCX, or ODT; upload tables and figures in separate slots. We parse them so tables and figures are reviewed distinctly in the report.

Literature-backed analysis

RAG across PubMed, Crossref, and Semantic Scholar connects your study to current evidence and field context.

Referee-style report and score

Publication-readiness score, axis-based review, and a prioritised action plan — clear pre-submission feedback.

Review or language editing

Choose AI peer-style review or English copy-editing in the same flow; pricing follows the service you pick.

Revisions and external comments

Upload a revision and optionally add journal or referee comments so the analysis matches your context.

Clinical and English-first

The flow is tuned for biomedical work; the main text for review should be in English.

PDF guidance, table and image slots, and a pre-flight checklist — details on the upload page; sign-in is required to continue.

How it works

We are not ChatGPT. We review like a referee.

Using RAG, we ground signals in academic databases and review your manuscript across four dimensions.

1

Upload your manuscript

Upload a PDF or DOCX. You can add tables and figures separately.

2

Literature + AI analysis

PubMed, Crossref, and Semantic Scholar are queried; findings are aligned with peer-review-style criteria.

3

Report and action plan

You get a publication-readiness score, critical fixes, and a clear revision plan.

Journal fit

Where could this manuscript go?

For English biomedical manuscripts, we combine embedding search over an in-house journal catalog with an optional AI re-rank — then attach a structured block to your report (not generic chat guesses).

Catalog + vectors

Journal rows are enriched from public metadata (e.g. Crossref, DOAJ) and embedded into a dedicated Qdrant collection for similarity search.

Discipline-aware retrieval

We infer your field from the review context, apply soft filters, and relax them if the catalog is sparse — so you still get usable shortlists.

Report + export

Suggestions appear in the web report and exports (DOCX / PDF) with conservative wording: always verify aims, scope, and reporting guidelines yourself.

Pricing

One review quality

Every paid manuscript gets the same full peer-review pipeline. Price scales with word count and workload (including PDF as the main file), not feature tiers.

First review free (no card): peer review only, 800–6000 words — one per eligible account. Longer files are priced normally after upload.

Short manuscript

Up to 3,000 words

From $29 USD

Same full review for every band

  • Shorter body; usually fewer tables, figures, and extra materials.
  • Statistical workload tends to be lighter—focus stays on the core narrative.
  • Higher bands reflect size and workload, not unlocking extra product features.
  • Turnaround depth matches this word band and typical file weight.
Get started
Most popular

Medium manuscript

3,001 – 5,000 words

From $45 USD

Same full review for every band

  • Mid-length text; more sections and often more tables or figures.
  • More pages and visuals increase extraction, reading, and cross-check time.
  • As methods or results expand, statistical review load rises naturally.
  • Quotes follow size and complexity—not a feature ladder between tiers.
Get started

Long manuscript

5,001+ words

From $59 USD

Same full review for every band

  • Long papers; many references, dense supplements, and heavy tables.
  • Lots of figures or dense numeric displays increase processing time.
  • PDF as the primary manuscript adds a flat +$5 USD fee in the quote summary.
  • Same product scope; price scales with volume and complexity.
Get started

English language editing

Standalone service — choose it at upload instead of peer review. Same word bands as review; fixed USD pricing.

From $15 USD

  • Up to 3,000 words · $15
  • 3,001 – 5,000 words · $24
  • 5,001+ words · $32
  • PDF manuscript +$5 USD

How we compare

AI pre-review vs. traditional editing services

Built for researchers who need a reviewer-style report fast — not a 7-day manual rewrite.

Best value

Review My Manuscript

$15 – $70

5–15 minutes

  • Reviewer-style report (methodology, statistics, structure)
  • RAG-grounded literature & journal-fit suggestions
  • Quote first, pay only if you accept — no subscription
  • Failed pipeline → automatic refund
Get my report now

Paperpal (Manuscript Check)

~$19 / month

Instant

  • AI grammar + language suggestions
  • Submission-readiness check (basic)
  • No deep methodology / statistics audit
  • Subscription-only, per-seat pricing

Trinka AI (Manuscript Plus)

~$20 / month

Instant

  • Academic grammar + plagiarism scan
  • Journal-fit & consistency checks
  • No reviewer-style structural critique
  • Subscription gating, limited free tier

Reviewer3 (AI Peer Review)

$19 one-time / $29 mo

~10 minutes

  • AI integrity & validity triage
  • Free tier for early drafts
  • Light on journal-fit & literature context
  • Limited for high-stakes selective journals

Enago (Substantive Edit)

$300 – $700+

5–7 business days

  • Human editor language polish
  • Manuscript-level rewrite
  • No reviewer-style methodology analysis
  • Slower turnaround, higher cost

Editage (Premium Edit)

$250 – $650+

5–10 business days

  • Human editor copyediting
  • Language and grammar focus
  • No automated stats or structure audit
  • Subscription / package upsells

Competitor prices are illustrative public quotes (2026) and may vary by manuscript length, package, and region. Compare current quotes directly on each provider's site.

Testimonials

What researchers say

"

The pre-submission report flagged a statistical issue our internal reviewers missed. Saved us from a desk reject.

RF

Cardiology research fellow

University teaching hospital

"

The methodology feedback was granular — it read like a real reviewer's report. The literature context section was the most useful part for our team.

PR

Postdoctoral researcher

Neuroscience, R1 university

"

The journal-fit suggestion saved us months — we re-submitted to a better-fit Q2 instead of chasing a Q1 with the wrong scope.

SR

Senior researcher

Clinical oncology

FAQ

Common questions

Before you submit to a journal, it provides AI-assisted, reviewer-style assessment and reports methodological and literature-related risks.

Guides

Academic resources

Peer-review and scientific writing guides — two categories, full library below.

Peer review processes

Rejection, revision, reviewer reports, pre-submission checks, and journal fit.

11 guides — scroll this section for the rest.

Why do papers get rejected?

Common editor and reviewer reasons for rejection—and how to lower your risk.

Read article

What is a desk reject?

A critical checklist so your manuscript reaches peer review.

Read article

What does major revision mean?

How to manage a major revision decision and structure your response.

Read article

Your peer-review report arrived—what next?

A step-by-step plan to revise without common mistakes.

Read article

How to write a strong response to reviewers

Point-by-point structure, specific revisions, and page/line references for a professional response letter.

Read article

Scientific manuscript review (before you submit)

Pre-review logic, risk areas, and pre-submission quality checks.

Read article

How the peer review process works

Editor screening, reviewer assignment, revision rounds, and decisions—at a glance.

Read article

How reviewers evaluate manuscripts

Methodology, credibility of findings, and writing quality through a reviewer’s lens.

Read article

Peer review checklist for authors

A structured checklist aligned with what editors and reviewers scan before and during review.

Read article

What does minor revision mean?

Fast-track fixes and response strategies for a minor revision decision.

Read article

What is journal impact factor?

How to read the metric and use it sensibly when choosing a journal.

Read article

Scientific manuscript writing

IMRaD sections, statistical reporting, and structured writing guides.

17 guides — scroll this section for the rest.

How to write a scientific paper

Topic choice, IMRAD structure, methods flow, and publication-focused drafting.

Read article

How to write a strong cover letter

Brief, original, journal-specific letter—novelty, fit, and ethical declarations.

Read article

How to write a strong research question

Build a focused, answerable question with PICO or PECO—population, comparison, and outcome.

Read article

How to write a strong research introduction

Build a clear introduction funnel from context to gap, then state your study aim and contribution.

Read article

How to write a strong research discussion

Interpret findings, compare with prior work, state limitations, and end with balanced implications.

Read article

How to choose reference software

Zotero, EndNote, Mendeley, Paperpile, RefWorks: collect, organize, cite, and format bibliographies with fewer errors.

Read article

How to use references correctly

When to cite, strong source selection, in-text use, common mistakes, reference managers, and pre-submission checklist.

Read article

How to write a strong research abstract

Structured, concise, and specific — answer why, how, what, and why it matters.

Read article

How to write a strong research methods section

Design, sampling, measures, ethics, and analysis plan — the blueprint readers need to trust your findings.

Read article

How to write a strong research results section

Report what was found objectively — primary outcomes, exact numbers, subgroups, and sensitivity checks.

Read article

How to write a statistical analysis section

Summarize data, define outcomes, justify models, and report missing-data and robustness checks clearly.

Read article

How to write a strong research conclusion

Clarify the main message — interpret findings, acknowledge limits, and end with clarity and perspective.

Read article

How to choose strong keywords

Pick specific, searchable, standardized keywords that help readers and databases find your paper—and avoid common mistakes.

Read article

How to write figure legends

Make figures self-contained: panels, abbreviations, scale bars, statistics, and clear wording reviewers expect.

Read article

How to write a strong title

Clear, specific, searchable titles with population, variables, outcome, and study design—plus weak vs strong examples.

Read article

How to prepare a strong table

Clear academic tables: headings, units, footnotes, weak vs strong examples, formatting tips, and checklist.

Read article

What is ethics committee / IRB approval?

When ethics approval is required, how to report it in Methods, consent vs waiver, example statements, and checklist.

Read article