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.
Manuscript review · peer-review pre-check
See what your reviewers will flag — before you submit.
Review methods, statistics, and reporting gaps in minutes with a reviewer-style pre-screen before submission.
Check my manuscript freeFor English biomedical manuscripts · free preview · full report $19 · no subscription
Built by Prof. Dr. Alp Özgün Börcek — Neurosurgery, Gazi University · ORCID
Your manuscript stays confidential, is never shared with third parties, and is kept while your account is active. You can delete it from your dashboard at any time.
Review reportCompleted
72
Publication-readiness score
Methods
85%
Literature
72%
Writing
90%
Statistics
65%
What you'll see in the full report
- Priority 1: Primary endpoint and sample-size rationale in Methods are unclear — reviewers may flag this as major.
Data sources and reporting frameworks — not commercial endorsements
PUBMED
CROSSREF
SEMANTIC SCHOLAR
CONSORT
STROBE
PRISMA
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.
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.
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 with Google or email when you start.
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.
From the founder
Built by a neurosurgery professor
Clear pre-submission feedback is still hard to get — while desk-reject risk often shows up early as methodology and reporting gaps. Not a replacement for a human reviewer; a structured check before you submit.
Read the full storyHow we differ
Built like a referee workflow — not a chatbot.
We don’t chat about your paper. We run a reviewer-style pipeline and return a structured pre-submission report you can act on.
Generic AI chat
Open-ended paste into a model
- Free-form answers with no fixed report structure
- Easy to invent references or soft claims without checks
- No scored axes, statistics audit, or revision priorities
- No literature grounding or journal-fit block in a deliverable
Review My Manuscript
Multi-agent peer-review pipeline
- Structured report: methods, novelty, writing, statistics
- Literature-aware signals from academic sources (RAG)
- Specialist passes for editorial, stats, visuals, and language
- Action plan + optional journal-fit — exportable DOCX
More detail: How is this different from ChatGPT or Paperpal?
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 for $19 USD ($38 above 15,000 words) — not feature tiers.
No card to start. Free preview: see the most important issue with a suggested fix; every issue is in the full report.
Full peer review
Up to 15,000 words ($38 above)
$19 USD
Same full review for every manuscript
- One price up to 15,000 words — $19; longer manuscripts are $38.
- Full Scenario A pipeline: methods, stats, literature context, and action plan.
- PDF or DOCX — no extra PDF fee on peer review.
- Revisions keep the usual 40% discount on the $19 base.
FAQ
Common questions
ChatGPT generates text; Paperpal and similar tools focus on language and basic submission checks. We run a structured peer-review-style analysis: methodology, statistics, literature context, and optional journal-fit — grounded in academic sources, not generic chat.
Before you submit to a journal, it provides AI-assisted, reviewer-style assessment and reports methodological and literature-related risks.
PDF and DOCX are supported. You can also upload tables and figures separately.
Yes. Your manuscript stays confidential, is never shared with third parties, and is kept while your account is active. You can delete your manuscript from your dashboard at any time, or email contact@reviewmymanuscript.com to have all your data deleted.
Depending on length, reports are typically ready within about 5–15 minutes.
No credit card is required to start. Free preview: see the most important issue with a suggested fix; every issue is in the full report. Unlocking the complete report is $19 USD for manuscripts up to 15,000 words and $38 above that. The exact amount is confirmed before payment.
Payments are processed by our regulated payment partner acting as Merchant of Record. A 14-day right of withdrawal applies where the law allows, with a digital-service exception once the report has been delivered. If our pipeline fails to deliver a report, your order is automatically moved to 'refund pending' and we initiate the refund without a separate request. Full details: /en/terms#refunds.
Explore by task
Researcher guides and evidence
Manuscript pre-review
Methods, statistics, reporting, contribution, and reviewer-facing risks.
Journal selection
Match scope and submission context before choosing a journal.
Best AI review tools 2026
Format vs scientific pre-review — CheckMyManuscript, Manusights, Reviewer3, Thesify, Paperpal, and us.
Original data
What 548 review findings criticise most, and how each finding is evidenced.
Review quality
Versioned, anonymous aggregate quality snapshot.
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.
12 guides — scroll this section for the rest.
Scientific manuscript writing
IMRaD sections, statistical reporting, and structured writing guides.
17 guides — scroll this section for the rest.