Your requirements. Your rules. Configured for you.
No two journals, funders, or teams review the same way. Your Octym team configures Octym to the way you actually work (your rules, your checks, your focus) and keeps it that way as your needs change.
Everything that decides what your review looks like.
The review is yours. What runs, what it's measured against, where the emphasis falls, and what you get back.
Which checks run
Every check, a focused subset, or a single deep dive. You decide what belongs in your review, and what doesn't.
The rules you're checked against
Your journal's author guidelines. Your funder's requirements. Your institution's policies. The standards you already work to are built into the review.
Where the emphasis falls
AI-generated text, reproducibility of the methods, statistics, how the claim sits against prior work. Whatever matters most to you leads.
How deep it goes
A fast screen at submission, a forensic pass at revision, a maximum-depth review when a concern is raised.
What you get back
The output is shaped around the decision you actually make, and the record you need to keep behind it.
Per journal, per team, per stage
Two journals at the same publisher can run two different reviews. So can two stages of the same journal.
You tell us. We build it.
There is nothing for you to configure and nothing to maintain. Your requirements become your review profile.
Tell us your requirements
Your stage, your audience, the journal or funder rules you work to, and the decisions the output has to support.
We configure it to your needs
We select which checks run, set the depth and framing for each, and shape the output around how you decide.
Activate and iterate
It goes live. Add a journal, change a funder, shift the focus: every change is a configuration, not a development cycle.
Checked against the requirements you're actually judged on.
A grant application is reviewed against that grant's own requirements (structure, rigor, compliance, references) alongside the full integrity and quality review. A manuscript is checked against the requirements of the journal it's going to.
Before you submit
Your application is checked against your funder's requirements, and your manuscript against the target journal's own author guidelines: required statements, structure, figure rules, and the policies the journal actually enforces.
At the editorial desk
Every submission is checked against your journal's requirements, the rules your editors would otherwise verify by hand, on every manuscript.
Funders and journals, already built.
A growing library of review profiles configured to published funder and journal requirements. Any one we haven't built yet, we build for you.
Funders & grant programs
- NIH R01
- NIH R21
- ERC Starting
- ERC Consolidator
- ERC Advanced
- Horizon Europe
- Wellcome
- Gates Foundation
- HHMI
- ISF
Built to each funder's published criteria.
Journals
- Clinical titles (CONSORT)
- Preclinical titles (ARRIVE)
- Observational titles (STROBE)
- Society journals
- High-volume open access
- Novelty-led selective titles
- Methods & protocols titles
- Data & resource titles
Built to each title's own instructions for authors and editorial policy.
Your Octym team, not a ticket queue.
You get a team that knows your journals, your funders, and how you work, and that keeps Octym matched to them.
Named people
Named people who know your setup, not a support form and a queue.
Tell us what you need
A new journal. A new funder. A check to add, a focus to change, something different on screen. You ask; we build it.
No development cycle on your side
Your requirements don't wait in anyone's backlog, and nothing needs building by your team.
One platform. A different review for everyone on it.
Two examples of what your Octym team sets up in practice.
Two different editor needs, so each journal gets a tailored solution.
- The flagship journal screens every submission in full (required statements, figure integrity, references, statistics, and methods) so editors decide what goes to reviewers with the full picture in front of them.
- Its sister title publishes at higher volume with a different scope, so it runs a tighter screen aimed at what causes trouble after publication: duplicated figures, retracted references, undisclosed AI-generated text.
- At revision, the figures the authors replaced are checked again, because the version accepted isn't the version that was screened.
- When a reader raises a concern about a paper already published, the integrity team starts from a full evidence-backed review instead of a screenshot and a hunch.
One platform. Four reviews: per journal, per stage, per team.
Every funder. Every stage.
- An NIH R01 and an ERC Starting Grant are assessed on entirely different criteria. Each application is checked against the one it will actually face, before the research office signs it off.
- Protocols are reviewed before the bench, so a missing control surfaces while it can still be added, not once the data is already collected.
- Every manuscript gets a full pre-submission review, so avoidable problems don't come back as a desk rejection three months later.
- When an allegation arrives, the integrity officer starts from evidence rather than a blank page.
Per funder, per stage, per team. Activated on demand.
Questions, answered.
Let's configure it to your needs.
Tell us how you work, and we'll configure Octym around it.
Analyzed on private servers. Never used to train models.