Every integrity and quality check, in one review, matched to where your work is headed.
The issues an editor or reviewer would find, found first. Your grant application checked against the funder's own criteria, your manuscript reviewed before you submit, while there is still time to act.
- Required statementsData availability not foundmissing
- Internal consistencyAbstract matches the resultsmet
- Methods, statistics & claimsp-value vs test statisticcheck
- References & data linksOne reference unresolvedcheck
One review, every lens.
One upload, three families of check: what is inside your manuscript, how it stands against the published record and the rules of where it is going, and whether the science is sound.
Internal manuscript integrity
- AI-generated text signals
- Image manipulation
- Image duplication
- AI-generated images
- Graph & chart duplication
- Statistical & analytical consistency
- Figure–legend consistency
- Claim & citation consistency
- Internal consistency
- Prior publication & reuse disclosure
External checks & requirements
- Image & graph plagiarism
- Retracted reference detection
- Hallucinated / non-existent references
- DOI & metadata resolution
- Reference analytics
- Data & code availability
- Paper-mill signals
- Authorship & affiliation consistency
- Funder requirements
- Submission requirements & completeness
Research quality
- Methods & rigor
- Reproducibility
- Replicability signals
- Research ethics
- Novelty & contribution
- Peer-review-grade analysis
Checked at the moment it can still change the outcome.
The same problems that cost desk rejections and resubmissions, found while there's still time to address them.
Before you submit
The issues an editor or reviewer would find, found first. Images, references, statistics, methods, ethics and disclosure statements, in one review.
Your grant application
Reviewed against the funder's own criteria (structure, rigor, compliance, references) before you press submit. NIH R01 and R21, ERC Starting, Consolidator and Advanced.
Checked for what gets papers sent back.
Most manuscripts come back before review for the same handful of reasons, whichever journal they went to. The pre-submission review catches them while they are still easy to fix.
Required statements
Ethics approval, data availability, funding, author contributions, competing interests, AI-use disclosure. A missing statement is one of the cheapest reasons to be sent back.
Internal consistency
Sections, definitions and registered plans that agree with each other, and an abstract that says what the results say.
Methods, statistics & claims
Design and bias controls, sample-size rationale, statistics that add up, and conclusions that stay within the evidence.
References & data links
Retracted or unresolved references, citations that don't support the claim, and data or code links that don't lead anywhere.
The fastest rejection is the one that never reaches a reviewer. This is the part you fully control.
Everything, in one pass.
Every integrity and quality check in one review, with each finding ranked, located in your manuscript, and traced to its source. Signals, not verdicts: you decide what's real.
- Figure 2Fig. 2b
Possible duplication with Figure 4a. Review the shared region.
High signalReview → - ReferencesRef. 14
Reference 14 appears in Retraction Watch.
ElevatedReview → - MethodsMethods ¶4
Consent for the imaging cohort isn't stated.
ElevatedReview → - StatisticsTable 3
Reported p-value differs from the recomputed test.
MediumResolved
Checked against the funder you're applying to. NIH R01 and R21 and ERC Starting, Consolidator and Advanced applications are checked against the scheme's own criteria, in the same review. Journal-specific requirements are configured for departments and institutions that license Octym, for the journals their researchers submit to.
Questions, answered.
See it on your next submission.
Log in, or contact us.
Analyzed on private servers. Never used to train models.