The same manuscript, run through each of the four modes — so you can see what shifts as you go deeper and pick the right one for your situation.
Not a peer review report — a long-form briefing on what the paper shows, why it matters, where it's strong, where it's shaky, and the questions worth asking. Built around a fixed taxonomy so each brief is comparable to the next.
This single-center, open-label RCT enrolled 214 adults hospitalized with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, EF ≤40%) and randomized them 1:1 to a structured remote patient monitoring (RPM) program plus standard care versus standard care alone. The RPM intervention combined daily wireless weight and blood pressure transmission, weekly symptom questionnaires via smartphone app, and nurse-led telephone triage with a standardized escalation protocol. Over 180 days, the primary composite endpoint (all-cause readmission or ED visit) occurred in 35.5% of RPM patients versus 48.6% of controls (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.44–0.99; P=0.048), with a secondary signal of reduced all-cause mortality (4.7% vs. 11.2%; HR 0.40; P=0.046) and improved quality of life.
A standalone review document — judgments, severity-tagged findings, reference checks, and notes against the reporting standard for your study type. You read it and decide what to do, the way you would with any external review.
Before you spend a credit on a full review, get a clear yes/no signal — and a short list of structural gaps that would otherwise come back as comments.
A complete pre-submission audit. Every Peer Review finding, plus a full journal-fit compliance pass against the target journal's house style, every reference verified against PubMed, line-by-line edit suggestions, and concrete rewrites delivered as tracked changes in your .docx.
An add-on to the Author Review tier. You get everything Author Review delivers, plus a comprehensive language-quality analysis — and the tracked-changes file fixes the language alongside the science.
Don't see yours? Email us — we read every one.