What Previum returns on a published education paper: every critique pinned to its sentence, p values recomputed, figures that do not add up and references checked against eight databases.
Sample report · education · real, already published paper
A paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, run through the Basic report exactly as it is, nothing edited: the manuscript with every critique pinned to the sentence that triggers it, and the code checks underneath.
The paper has already been peer reviewed and published. It is reproduced here under its Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (the full attribution, authors included, is at the linked DOI; they are deliberately not named here) to show what Previum returns on a real text from your field. The objections are the ones one more reviewer could have raised; that a published paper receives them says how demanding the tool is, not how weak the paper is.
Virtual patient simulation strengthens confidence in clinical conversations among undergraduated nursing students: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Medical Education, 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-025-08413-y. License: CC BY 4.0.
The manuscript reports a well-conducted exploratory RCT that demonstrates a statistically significant short-term gain in IPV-related confidence after virtual-patient training. Two decisive issues require attention before resubmission: the unvalidated objective knowledge instrument and the absence of any power or sensitivity analysis. Once these are addressed with transparent limitations and modest effect-size reporting, the paper would be suitable for a mid-tier health-professions-education journal. Risk of desk rejection is low if the above points are clarified.
Quoted sentence: «No formal power analysis was performed. The study included all nursing students enrolled in the fourth-semester course during the autumn term of 2024, representing the full population for that period. Consequently, the final sample size (N = 54) reflects pragmatic feasibility rather than statistical optimization.»
Why it matters: An under-powered exploratory RCT limits the strength of the claim that VP training “enhances learners’ confidence” and increases the risk that non-significant findings for self-efficacy and knowledge are type-II errors.
What would fix it: Report a post-hoc sensitivity analysis (minimum detectable effect size given N=54, four time points, and the observed ICC) and revise the conclusions to reflect the exploratory nature and the modest absolute change observed.
Quoted sentence: «The test was not piloted in a separate cohort, and no separate reliability analysis was performed.»
Why it matters: Without evidence of reliability or validity, the consistent group difference in objective knowledge cannot be confidently interpreted as a true educational effect rather than measurement artefact.
What would fix it: Add a brief psychometric appendix reporting item difficulty, discrimination indices and, if possible, Cronbach’s alpha or omega from the current sample; if the test cannot be validated post hoc, acknowledge this limitation more explicitly and qualify the knowledge findings accordingly.
In total the reviewer found 7 major and 9 minor issues; the Basic report shows the two that decide.
With the same engine the tool uses, on 11 September 2026: the full text of the paper, tables and references included, went into the Basic report with no added instructions. The checks below are arithmetic on the text and queries to eight bibliographic databases, no model involved. Not a line of the output has been edited.
Upload your manuscript (Word or PDF) and in a few minutes you have this same report on your text. Free, with your account. The manuscript is not stored.