The same manuscript, run through both tiers — 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 complete 16-section pre-submission review of your own manuscript — methods, statistics, and conclusions vs. evidence. Every reference checked against PubMed and Crossref with retracted papers flagged, a compliance audit against your target journal's author instructions, and journal-formatting tracked changes in your .docx when you select a target journal.
An add-on to Peer Review. You get everything Peer Review delivers, plus a comprehensive language-quality analysis in the report — and sentence-level language corrections delivered as tracked changes in your .docx.
Don't see yours? Email us — we read every one.