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 manuscript checked against the target journal's guidelines, your grant application against the funder's criteria, while there is still time to act.
- Required statementsData availability not foundmissing
- Structure & article typeMatches this article typemet
- Length & count limitsAbstract over the limitcheck
- Reporting checklistMatches the study designmet
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 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
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, and your target journal's own author guidelines, in one review.
Your grant application
Reviewed against the funder's own criteria (structure, rigor, compliance, references) before you press submit. NIH, ERC, Horizon Europe, and more.
Before the experiment
Your protocol reviewed while the design can still change: the missing control caught before it costs you the dataset.
Checked against the journal you are actually submitting to.
Journals do not share one rulebook. Point the review at the venue you are submitting to and your manuscript is measured against that journal's own instructions for authors, while everything it finds is 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.
Structure & article type
Section order, abstract format, and the rules for the article type you are submitting, 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 your study design calls for, from CONSORT to ARRIVE to STROBE, ready before the submission system asks for it.
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
Matched to wherever it's going. Point the review at your target, a journal or a funder, and your work is checked against that venue's own requirements alongside every integrity and quality check.
Questions, answered.
See it on your next submission.
Log in, or contact us.
Analyzed on private servers. Never used to train models.