What Previum returns on a published psychology paper: every critique pinned to its sentence, p values recomputed, figures that do not add up and references checked against eight databases.
Sample report · psychology · 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.
The effect of mindfulness training on resilience and decision-making strategy in women with unwanted pregnancy (a quasi-experimental study). BMC Psychology, 2025. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-025-03864-w. License: CC BY 4.0.
The manuscript reports a feasible quasi-experimental evaluation of a mobile mindfulness intervention but contains two decisive weaknesses that must be corrected before resubmission. First, the central claim that the intervention influences actual decisions to continue pregnancy exceeds the data; only a self-report tendency score was measured. Second, effect sizes and confidence intervals are entirely absent from the results. These two issues alone would trigger a request for major revisions or rejection at most health-psychology or midwifery journals. Additional reporting gaps (incomplete tables, limited psychometric detail on the outcome measure) further reduce the current version’s publishability.
Quoted sentence: «Utilizing a mindfulness training strategy for couples with unintended pregnancies who are not inclined to continue the pregnancy can have a positive effect on their decision-making.»
Why it matters: This over-interpretation converts a change in a self-report scale into a behavioral claim that cannot be supported by the data and risks misleading readers and policy makers about an ethically sensitive outcome.
What would fix it: Revise every statement in the abstract, discussion and conclusion that equates lower questionnaire scores with 'continuing the pregnancy'. Replace with precise language limited to 'reduction in self-reported tendency toward abortion on the 27-item scale'. Add a sentence in the limitations section stating that actual pregnancy outcome data were not collected.
Quoted sentence: «the changes in the mean resilience scores in the intervention group were significant and equal to 15.5 ± 3.9, while in the control group, it was − 1.5 ± 3.38»
Why it matters: Without magnitude and precision estimates, readers cannot judge whether the observed changes (e.g., resilience increase of 15.5 points) are clinically meaningful or merely statistically detectable in a modest sample.
What would fix it: Re-analyze the data and add Cohen’s d (or Hedges’ g) with 95 % CI for every primary contrast; report these values in the text, tables and abstract in accordance with CONSORT or APA standards for intervention studies.
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.