What do institutions use Octym for most?

The everyday work: grant applications checked against the funder's own criteria, protocols reviewed in the lab before the bench, and a full integrity and quality review of every manuscript before it leaves the institution.

Which funders can applications be checked against?

Review profiles are already built for NIH (R01 and R21), ERC (Starting, Consolidator, and Advanced), Horizon Europe, Wellcome, the Gates Foundation, HHMI, and ISF, among others. Any funder that isn't in the library yet, your Octym team builds for you.

Can different departments or labs run different reviews?

Yes. What runs, what leads, and who it runs for is configured per department, lab, or policy. You decide, and your Octym team makes it happen.

What happens if an allegation arrives?

Your integrity officer starts from evidence rather than a blank page: a maximum-depth review of any paper, submitted or published, on the same platform. Every finding is a signal traced to its source; a person always decides.

Is our researchers' unpublished work kept private?

Yes. Manuscripts and applications are analyzed on secure, private servers and are never used to train AI models.

For research institutions

Every integrity and quality check, in one review, for every funder, lab, and department.

Grant applications checked against each funder's own criteria, protocols reviewed in the lab, and every manuscript checked against its target journal's guidelines before it leaves the institution. Configured for your policies by your Octym team.

Leaving the institution

each checked at its own gate

Grant applicationNIH R01
Specific aimsRigor & reproducibilityData-management plan
ManuscriptTarget journal
Required statementsLength & count limitsReporting checklist
ProtocolField standard
ControlsSample size & powerBlinding

Measured by the rules it will actually face, before it goes out.

What every review covers

One review, every lens.

The same three families of check run across your institution's work, whether it is a grant application, a protocol, or a manuscript heading out the door.

Internal manuscript integrity

AI-generated text signals
Image manipulation
Image duplication
AI-generated images
Graph & chart duplication
Statistical validation & consistency
Figure–legend consistency
Claim & citation consistency

External checks & requirements

Image & graph plagiarism
Retracted reference detection
Hallucinated / non-existent references
DOI, link & metadata accuracy
Citation patterns
Data & code availability
Paper-mill signals
Author identity & affiliation
Funder requirements
Journal author guidelines
Reporting-standard alignment

Research quality

Methods & rigor
Reproducibility
Replicability
Research ethics
Novelty & contribution
Peer-review-grade analysis

See every check in detail

Where institutions use it most

The everyday work, checked before it counts.

Most of the value is in the work your institution submits every week: applications, protocols, and manuscripts, each reviewed against the rules it will actually face.

Grant applications

Checked against the funder's own criteria (NIH R01 and R21, ERC, Horizon Europe, and more): structure, rigor, compliance, and references, before the research office signs off.

In the lab

Protocols reviewed before the bench: a missing control surfaces while it can still be added, aligned to the reporting standards your fields are held to.

Before submission

Every manuscript is reviewed against the requirements of the journal it is actually going to, alongside the full integrity and quality review, before it leaves the institution.

And if something ever goes wrong. When an allegation arrives, your integrity officer starts from evidence rather than a blank page: a maximum-depth review of any paper, submitted or published, ready on the same platform.

Before it goes out

Checked against the journal it is actually going to.

Every journal publishes its own instructions for authors, and they differ in ways that cost real time. Tell your Octym team where a manuscript is headed and the review is measured against that venue's rules, not a generic standard.

Required statements

Ethics approval, data availability, funding, author contributions, competing interests, AI-use disclosure: present, complete, and in the form that journal asks for.

Structure & article type

Section order, abstract format, and the rules that apply to the specific article type, which often differ within the same journal.

Length & count limits

Abstract and word limits, page and figure counts, and reference limits, checked against the numbers that journal publishes.

Reporting checklist

The guideline the study design calls for, from CONSORT to ARRIVE to STROBE, so the checklist a journal asks for at submission is already satisfied.

A desk rejection for a missing statement costs weeks. The check costs one upload.

Complete control

Your institution's rules, your call.

What runs, what leads, and when it changes. You decide; your Octym team makes it happen.

You decide

Which funders, which policies, and what runs for which department or lab.

Your Octym team builds it

A new funder, a new policy, a new requirement. Tell them, and it's configured for you.

It changes when you do

Funders rewrite guidelines and policies evolve. Your reviews keep up without a project on your side.

Image & figure integrity is powered by Proofig, a trusted leader in scientific image integrity, adopted by leading journals and trusted by top research institutions.

A growing library of funder review profiles (NIH R01 and R21, ERC Starting, Consolidator, and Advanced, Horizon Europe, Wellcome, Gates, HHMI, ISF), alongside journal profiles built to individual venues' own instructions for authors. Anything not in the library yet, your Octym team builds for you.

FAQ

Questions, answered.

See it on your institution's work.

Tell us your funders and your policies. We'll configure Octym around them.

Analyzed on private servers. Never used to train models.