Versus · captured 12 September 2026

PeerReviewAI vs Liner: which checks more of your manuscript?

A research AI whose Peer Review agent "organizes the most critical feedback into actionable suggestions" across novelty, rigor, clarity, impact and limitation; 60 credits per review on Liner plans. PeerReviewAI: $49 per manuscript for the 16-section review with verified references, checklist and journal audits, and formatting as tracked changes. Liner's facts are quoted from its site.

Side by sideRead the sample review
$49 per manuscript vs 60 credits per review on Liner plans
Key takeaways
  • Liner: 60 credits per review on Liner plans. PeerReviewAI: $49 per manuscript, no subscription.
  • Liner states 1 of the eight criteria on its site; PeerReviewAI states all eight.
  • Reference verification: Liner not stated; PeerReviewAI checks every reference against PubMed and Crossref with retraction screening.
  • Your Word file: Liner does not edit it; PeerReviewAI applies the journal's formatting as tracked changes.
  • Choose Liner for researchers already on a Liner plan who want a criteria-based critique; the page claims "Useful comments about 70% aligned with official ICLR 2024 peer reviews", Liner's own figure.
Side by side

How do PeerReviewAI and Liner compare?

DimensionPeerReviewAILiner
Price$49 per manuscript, no subscription. Journal Brief $2.99 per paper (first free). ESL add-on $19.99.Peer Review agent: 60 credits per request. Plans: Free $0; Pro $17.99/month ($14.99 billed annually); Max $35.99/month ($29.99 annually); Team $26.99 per seat; Enterprise custom
TurnaroundMinutes; streamed live; PDF downloads at completionNot stated on the feature page; a Liner article is titled "Submit Stronger Papers with AI Peer Review in 10 Minutes"
Output16-section review; PDF and journal-formatted .docx download at completionA report with prioritized revisions and feedback for each of five criteria
Reference verificationEvery reference checked against PubMed and Crossref; status per reference; retraction screening on every DOI; each PubMed-matched abstract checked against the claim it is cited forNot stated
Reporting guidelinesItem-by-item audit against the applicable guideline: CONSORT, SPIRIT, PRISMA and extensions, STROBE, CARE, SRQR, ARRIVE, TRIPOD, SQUIRE, CHEERS, STARD, STREGANot stated
Target-journal instructionsAudit against the target journal's author instructionsNot stated
Edits your Word fileJournal formatting applied to your .docx as Word tracked changes, includedNo
Data policyZero Data Retention (Anthropic); never stored or used for trainingThe page's FAQ asks whether uploaded drafts are protected from Google search; the answer was not captured
VerdictNo accept/reject verdictSee the vendor's site
Full sample reportFull 16-section sample review publishedNot found on the pages captured
Matrix

Which of the eight checks does each state?

ToolReferences checked against PubMed / CrossrefRetraction screeningReporting-guideline audit (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA …)Target-journal author-instruction auditJournal formatting applied as Word tracked changesPay per manuscriptNo subscription requiredFull sample report published
PeerReviewAIYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
LinerNot statedNot statedNoNoNoPartialNoNot stated
Verdict

When is Liner the better choice?

Liner

Researchers already on a Liner plan who want a criteria-based critique; the page claims "Useful comments about 70% aligned with official ICLR 2024 peer reviews", Liner's own figure.

PeerReviewAI

The manuscript you are submitting: references verified, checklist and journal instructions audited, formatting as tracked changes. $49, no verdict, no subscription.

Both

None replaces journal peer review or detects fabricated data; all find manuscript-visible problems before an editor does.

Why the price is different

Why is the price different?

Product facts verified in the code that runs the review; prices as captured.
What runs on every review

Up to four model passes: study-design detection, which selects the reporting guideline; the 16-section review; a separate compliance audit after the review is written; journal formatting as tracked changes on your .docx (a fifth pass with the ESL add-on). Plus a PubMed and Crossref lookup for every reference, with retraction screening, and a search of PubMed's roughly 40 million records for relevant uncited papers. A chat plan buys one model turn per message; the cheaper tools deliver one report.

Bundled here, priced separately elsewhere

Human pre-submission peer review starts at $272 (Enago) or $289 (AJE); journal formatting alone is $75 to $150. No AI tool in our comparison edits your Word file. Reference verification, the checklist audit and the formatting are all inside the $49.

Per year, at the captured prices
  • ChatGPT Plus: $20 a month, $240 a year.
  • Claude Pro: $17 to $20 a month, $204 to $240 a year.
  • Google AI Pro (Gemini): $19.99 a month, $239.88 a year.
  • Reviewer3 Researcher: $19 a month, $228 a year.
  • Review-it Unlimited: $59 a month, $708 a year.
  • Paperpal Prime: $144 a year, $144 a year.
  • PeerReviewAI: $49 per manuscript, $49 to $147 a year for one to three manuscripts.
What you keep

Zero Data Retention. No verdict. A full sample review published before you pay. No subscription in the months you are not submitting.

When the cheaper option is right

Liner (60 credits per review on Liner plans) if researchers already on a Liner plan who want a criteria-based critique; the page claims "Useful comments about 70% aligned with official ICLR 2024 peer reviews", Liner's own figure is all you need. PeerReviewAI for the manuscript you are submitting, when references, checklist and journal formatting all need checking.

Protected by Anthropic’s Zero Data Retention
Your manuscript is never stored, logged, or used for training.
FAQ

Questions, answered.

Don't see yours? Email us — we read every one.

Compare the reports, not the claims.

The full 16-section sample review is published, reference table and checklist audit included.

Read the sample reviewAll AI review tools
For the manuscript you're submitting