Octym runs every integrity and quality check, in one review.
The complete package, grouped into three categories: what's inside the manuscript, how it stands against the published record and the requirements of wherever it's headed, and whether the science is sound. Every finding is a signal backed by evidence, never a verdict.
Internal manuscript integrity
Issues that originate inside the manuscript itself: manipulated or duplicated figures, numbers that don't add up, captions that don't match. The clear, must-fix problems, surfaced first.
10 checksExternal checks & requirements
Checks that compare the work against everything outside it: the published literature, authoritative records, and the requirements of wherever it's headed.
10 checksResearch quality
Analysis of the research itself: whether the methods are sound, the work could be reproduced, and the science holds up.
6 checksInternal manuscript integrity
Issues that originate inside the manuscript itself: manipulated or duplicated figures, numbers that don't add up, captions that don't match. The clear, must-fix problems, surfaced first.
AI-generated text signals
Calibrated signals of AI-generated or paraphrased writing, aware that non-native English is not evidence of anything. A signal for a person to weigh, never a determination about an author.
Image manipulation
Pixel-level forensics that flag where a figure has been cloned, spliced, or retouched, tuned for the image types that matter most in life science.
Powered by Proofig
Image duplication
Compares every figure against the others to catch reused or overlapping panels, including FACS / flow-cytometry.
Powered by Proofig
AI-generated images
Identifies synthetic, AI-generated scientific figures, surfaced as a signal with the evidence behind it.
Powered by Proofig
Graph & chart duplication
Finds data-visualizations reused or repurposed across the manuscript. A distinct forensic from photographic images.
Powered by Proofig
Statistical & analytical consistency
Checks the reported statistics against each other: p-values, test statistics and degrees of freedom that are not consistent with one another, percentages and counts that are impossible for the stated sample, confidence intervals that cannot be right, and results that disagree between text, tables and figures. Concrete arithmetic inconsistencies, quoted with the reported values.
Figure–legend consistency
Reads figures, their legends and the text that cites them together, and flags mismatches: legends that describe something different from what is shown, missing labels or units that make a figure uninterpretable, captions that contradict the methods or results.
Claim & citation consistency
Reads each in-text claim and its citation to flag statements that need a source but lack one, and citations that don't align with the claim.
Internal consistency
Reads the document as a whole and flags where it contradicts itself: definitions and eligibility rules that change between sections, registered or stated plans the results don't follow, and numbers that differ between text, tables and supplements. For grant applications, checks that the proposal, CV, budget and governance material describe the same project.
Prior publication & reuse disclosure
Reviews what the manuscript says about preprints, earlier publications, reused datasets and its relationship to the authors' related work, and flags results that appear to be reused from related same-author work without a clear explanation.
External checks & requirements
Checks that compare the work against everything outside it: the published literature, authoritative records, and the requirements of wherever it's headed.
Image & graph plagiarism
Compares images and data-visualizations against the published literature to surface figures reused from other papers.
Powered by Proofig, the largest image-plagiarism database in the industry
Retracted reference detection
Cross-checks every reference against the Retraction Watch database and flags citations to retracted papers, with the retraction date, nature and reason attached.
Backed by the Retraction Watch database
Hallucinated / non-existent references
Resolves each reference against scholarly databases, then a web search. References that still cannot be matched to any publication record are marked unresolved for you to check: this is where invented or hallucinated citations surface.
Backed by OpenAlex
DOI & metadata resolution
Resolves each reference to its DOI and publication record and shows the resolved metadata (authors, year, journal) beside the citation, so broken and incomplete references are easy to spot.
Backed by OpenAlex
Reference analytics
Analyzes the reference list as a whole: how many references resolved, how citation counts and publication years are distributed, how much of the cited work is open access, and which journals and work types dominate. Signals for a person to weigh, not verdicts.
Data & code availability
Resolves the data, code and materials a manuscript says are available, confirming the links actually lead somewhere, and checks that availability statements are present and specific.
Paper-mill signals
Surfaces the signals that cluster in paper-mill submissions, each from its own check: figures reused from other papers, authorship and affiliation inconsistencies, undisclosed reuse of related work, references that don't support the claims, and missing disclosure of the original data files behind key images. Each is a signal with its evidence attached, never a conclusion about the authors.
Authorship & affiliation consistency
Checks author names, affiliations, correspondence details and contribution statements for completeness and internal consistency, and flags the authorship and accountability gaps that often accompany paper-mill submissions.
Funder requirements
Reviews an application against the funder's own criteria: scheme fit and eligibility, required structure and annexes, rigor of the approach and of the preliminary evidence, budget justification, data-management and sharing plans, ethics, and the declarations the scheme requires. Checks are built for NIH R01 and R21 and for ERC Starting, Consolidator and Advanced grants.
Submission requirements & completeness
Checks the submission against what editors otherwise verify by hand: scope and article type, completeness, required statements and declarations, ethics and registration, reporting completeness, and rights and permits. Journal-specific rules are added to your review profile by your Octym team at onboarding.
Research quality
Analysis of the research itself: whether the methods are sound, the work could be reproduced, and the science holds up.
Methods & rigor
Evaluates the soundness of the design (randomization, blinding, controls, and whether the sample size is justified) and whether the methods are reported clearly enough to be appraised.
Reproducibility
Checks that the protocol, computational environment, and analysis are described completely enough to reproduce the result.
Replicability signals
Reads the signals that bear on whether a finding would hold up: whether the sample and information are adequate, whether the analysis is robust to its assumptions and choices, and whether the claims stay within what the evidence supports. Signals for a person to weigh, never a prediction.
Research ethics
Checks that ethics / IRB approval, informed consent, conflicts of interest, funding, and AI use are disclosed and internally consistent, with a named human accountable for the work.
Novelty & contribution
Checks whether the manuscript states its research question, the gap it addresses and the contribution it claims, and whether that framing is consistent with the evidence and citations it presents. For grant applications, whether the case for importance and innovation is made against current practice.
Peer-review-grade analysis
Synthesizes every check into a structured, reviewer-style Assessment: major issues first, each comment anchored to the passage it's about, alongside a Summary of the manuscript. Decision-support for a human, not an accept/reject verdict.
Signals, not verdicts. Octym surfaces findings with evidence and traces each to its source. A person always decides what matters. Octym never accuses anyone of misconduct.