What problem does it solve? Researchers preparing a manuscript for submission often lack access to honest, structured peer-review feedback before sending it to a journal, making it hard to spot weak novelty claims, technical gaps, or poor readability for nonspecialists. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Simulated Referee Reports: Produces three reviewer reports grounded in Nature's official editorial criteria, differing only in emphasis (technical soundness, originality/significance, interdisciplinary readability). - Cross-Review Synthesis: Consolidates consensus strengths, shared technical risks, and weighting differences across the three reports. - Anti-Hallucination Guardrails: Flags unsupported claims and missing evidence with explicit markers instead of inventing experiments, citations, or reviewer personas. - Use Case: Before submitting a paper, paste your abstract and results sections and ask for a mock peer review; you receive three referee-style assessments plus a synthesis of the most important issues to resolve. ## Quick Start Ask the assistant to review your attached manuscript draft as a Nature-style referee and return three reviewer reports with a cross-review synthesis.
