peer-review

To create a structured peer review, upload your scientific manuscript and specify the target reporting guidelines. The system then guides you through initial assessment, in-depth section critiques, and reproducibility checks to generate editor-ready feedback.

Yes, you can evaluate manuscripts against specific reporting guidelines like CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, ARRIVE, and MIAME. The review process uses template-driven feedback aligned with these standards to ensure rigorous critique and compliance.

A standards-based manuscript review checks reproducibility and statistics by guiding reviewers through dedicated methodology and statistics evaluation stages. This enforces adherence to reporting guidelines and outputs structured major and minor comments for transparency.

The best way to generate editor-ready feedback for journal submissions and grant reviews is using a template-driven evaluation process. It standardizes assessments across disciplines into structured stages, producing actionable major and minor comments that editors can rely on.

Yes, this peer-review process works for preprint assessments and reviewer-training scenarios. It standardizes evaluations across disciplines, uplifting review quality and consistency by enforcing adherence to major reporting guidelines and structured critique stages.