manuscript-critic

A pre-submission audit evaluates your academic manuscript against journal-specific standards and reporting guidelines to identify compliance gaps. This stress testing checks for missing effect sizes, inconsistent reporting, and methodological documentation issues that typically trigger desk rejection.

A multi-perspective peer review analyzes academic manuscripts from the viewpoints of a peer reviewer, journal editor, field reader, and methodologist. This structured approach identifies gaps in logic, reproducibility verification, and presentation that a single-perspective review might miss.

Yes, the pre-submission audit applies to original research, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. It performs a comprehensive 13-phase audit to ensure compliance with journal standards and reporting guidelines like CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA.

Reproducibility verification checks your clinical trial report for missing methodological documentation and inconsistent reporting. A structured gap analysis identifies missing effect sizes and methodological gaps that would otherwise trigger peer-review failure.

Yes, the manuscript compliance audit evaluates submissions against reporting guidelines including CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA. It stress-tests the manuscript against these standards to ensure reporting guidelines are fully satisfied before journal submission.

Automated editorial feedback provides structured gap analysis and reproducibility verification but focuses on pre-submission stress testing against desk-rejection criteria. It does not replace the actual journal peer-review process but prepares the manuscript to withstand it.