AI peer review before you submit: two simulated reviewers and an editor flag what the journal would object to while you can still fix it. Basic report free.
Upload your full paper as Word or PDF and get a rehearsal of what the journal you are sending it to would send back, with time to spare to fix it: two reviewers — one from your field, one on methods — and a simulated editor's decision letter. Theory, design, analysis, results, writing and journal fit, in your own discipline, whichever it is.
Not stored · Never used for training · Not prior publication
How it compares: our benchmark against Reviewer3, on 200 eLife papers with their code and their judge.
Not a separate report you have to cross-check against your document: it is your own .docx, with every objection pinned to the sentence it discusses and signed by the reviewer who raised it. It opens in Word and you can forward it to your co-authors as it is.
The Basic report shows you the finding that decides the review, with the quote from your text and how to fix it. Professional shows every one the two simulated reviewers find, major and minor, with its fix.
Professional report · {{precio:revisor}}. Every finding with its fix, the editor’s letter, the action plan and the journals, with the criteria used in a Q1 journal. One-off payment, no subscription.
There are objections already sitting in your manuscript before you submit it, and plenty of them you could fix in an afternoon. Start free in 1-3 minutes and you will know where you stand. And when you are about to submit, the Professional report leaves you every critique with its fix and the editor’s letter before Reviewer 2 does, for {{precio:revisor}}, once.
It delivers feedback in 1-3 minutes instead of 3 months. It does not replace formal peer review, but it lets you detect and fix predictable critiques before submission, exactly when you can still do something about them.
It has been tuned, iteration after iteration, with real Q1 review criteria in psychology and health sciences: G*Power, psychometric validation, assumptions, effect sizes, APA 7, etc. It is not a generic chatbot giving opinions.
No. It does not generate text for your paper or rewrite it. It tells you what a Q1 reviewer would object to and why, so you decide how to fix it. It is a critical read, not a content generator: the manuscript remains entirely yours.
It cannot predict an editor, but it reads your manuscript the way an editor does in the first five minutes: scope, design against question, reporting and numbers that do not add up. The Basic review gives you the two findings most likely to sink the submission, free, so you can run a desk-reject check on your manuscript before you submit.
What a desk-rejection is and what the editor checks first
Do not submit yet. Read the major concerns and assess whether they are fixable with the data you have (most are: robust analyses, assumptions, reporting). If you need human guidance, book a free consult.
Not on our servers. Your manuscript is read to write the review and then discarded: what stays in your account is the review, with the sentences it quotes. If you buy the Professional report, while you pay the text waits encrypted for 24 hours at most and is deleted as soon as the review is done; that is what lets us generate it even if you close the tab. Your browser keeps a copy so you can open it here again, and you can delete it.
It is an automated review that simulates a journal’s: an editor and two reviewers. Behind it there are two providers that correct each other. The Basic review is written by one, with the other as a fallback in case the main one fails momentarily. The Professional review is generated by one and verified by the other: the one that checks is at a different provider on purpose, because two from the same family share blind spots. A third and a fourth provider are configured as further fallbacks in case the first two are unavailable. We use their paid APIs on purpose: their terms exclude using your text for training. The specific providers are named one by one, with their role and their location, in the privacy policy and in the data processing agreement: that is what a legal office looks at before signing.
No. Your manuscript is never used for training (the paid API contracts exclude it), it is not published anywhere and it is not shared with anyone. Running your text through this private review does not count as prior publication and does not affect originality for the journal. Even so, if your work is very sensitive, you can send only the part you need reviewed.
Any scientific discipline. The report does not assume a field: it identifies yours by reading the manuscript and reviews it by that community’s standards, not somebody else’s. It has gone through work in psychology and nursing, but also analytical chemistry, ecology, engineering, applied economics, education and computer science. What changes across fields is not how demanding it is, but which specific standards apply.
Yes, completely. Other companies charge for this; we believe fostering better science should not come out of your pocket. The Basic review is free and you can read it without an account; with an account it is saved and you can download the Word file.