How it works

A second opinion,
never a verdict.

Upload your manuscript. Get back a structured review that reads like it came from a careful reviewer at your target journal — findings tagged by severity, paired with the section they came from, and how to fix each one.

We surface what a reviewer would surface — findings and required revisions, framed as advice to you, never a verdict on acceptance. The decision to revise, submit, or set aside is yours.

Start your review See a sample review →

N Engl J MedDraft 3 · Under review

Effect of a Structured Remote Patient Monitoring Program on 180-Day Hospital Readmission in Heart Failure

Mitchell SJ, Okonkwo DR, Vasquez E, et al.

§ Abstract

Methods A total of 214 patients were enrolled at a single academic center.

Results The primary composite of readmission or ED visit was reduced (HR 0.67; P=0.048); all-cause mortality was significantly reduced (HR 0.40; P=0.046).

Conclusions RPM supports routine implementation as a standard component of post-discharge HF management.

M1

Major

ITT vs. mITT analysis description is internally inconsistent.

M2

Major

Mortality claim overstated — fragile secondary endpoint; CI upper bound essentially touches 1.0.

M5

Major

‘Routine implementation’ conclusion not supported by data.

Examples use a synthetic manuscript created for demonstration. No real patient data, author work, or published research is shown.

The pipeline

Upload to insight, in five stages.

Choose Your Depth

Pick the tier that matches your situation — a focused journal-club brief, or the complete 16-section pre-submission review of your own manuscript.

Journal BriefPeer Review

Upload Your Manuscript

.docx or .pdf — we extract the full text and detect formatting metadata, and you pick your target journal.

Manuscript Analysis

Our detection engine identifies your study type, matches the correct reporting guideline, and selects discipline-specific evaluation criteria.

Multi-Stage Expert Review

Not a single prompt. A structured multi-stage analysis: article and journal-specific deep review, true reference verification, compliance audit, and quality validation.

Unlike chatbot wrappers, PeerReviewAI uses actual reporting guidelines, expert article-specific methodology resources, and journal-specific author instructions — not just a prompt and an LLM.

Export & Share

Your review PDF downloads automatically the moment it completes. With a target journal and .docx provided, journal-formatting tracked changes run automatically afterward — and your formatted manuscript downloads when they finish.

What's in the review

Eight dimensions, one careful pass.

Platform capability. Each tier above turns up the volume on how deeply we go.

Scientific rigor

Conclusions vs. Evidence

Claims checked against what the data actually shows. Overstatements and leaps flagged.

Found:

“Supports routine implementation of RPM” — 5 vs 12 deaths; CI 0.16–0.98.

Literature Context

How the work sits in the existing evidence base — consistent, novel, contradictory, or already-answered.

Found:

BEAT-HF (Ong, 2016) and Tele-HF (Chaudhry, 2010) found no benefit — not addressed.

Statistical Claims Audit

Power, effect sizes, significance language, multiple-comparison handling, and reported vs. required sample sizes.

Found:

5 secondary outcomes reported; methods state no multiplicity adjustment.

Practical Implications

How the findings translate — or don't — to the real world, the clinic, the bench.

Found:

Single-center, LVEF ≤40% only — conclusions generalize to all HF patients.

References & compliance

Reference Verification

Citations checked — that they exist, say what the manuscript claims they say, and are correctly attributed.

Found:

Ref 9 (Harrison, 2022) cannot be located in PubMed — possibly fabricated.

Missing References

Claims and methods that would ordinarily cite prior work, but don't — surfaced with candidate references to consider.

Found:

TIM-HF2 (Koehler, 2018) is the most directly comparable trial — not cited.

Reporting Checklist Compliance

Whether the manuscript reports the elements expected for its study type, section by section.

Found:

Missing: allocation concealment mechanism, blinding of outcome adjudicators.

Journal-Specific Compliance

Formatting and submission requirements for your target journal — word counts, structure, figure specs, disclosures.

Found:

Abstract 314 words — NEJM limit is 250. Structured format required.

Why this is different

Not a Chatbot Wrapper.
A structured, methodological, multi-stage pipeline.

Reporting guidelines, journal-specific author instructions, and article-specific methodology resources — used to confidentially evaluate your manuscript. Not a single prompt with a generic response.

Grounded, not hallucinated.

Findings are checked against established reporting guidelines, methodology standards, and verified references — not generated from memory.

Consistent, not random.

Structured evaluation criteria produce consistent, criteria-driven assessments. The same manuscript gets the same rigor on the next pass.

Protected by Anthropic’s Zero Data Retention.

Your manuscript is never saved, logged, or used for training.

ESL authors · $19.99 add-on

For authors writing in a second language.

A dedicated review section addresses idiomatic phrasing, tone calibration, and technical vocabulary consistency — without flattening your voice or style.

›Clarity rewrites — same meaning, plainer English
›Tone calibration for target-journal register
›Technical vocabulary consistency across sections
›Idiomatic phrasing — where it helps, where to avoid

Original

"The obtained results have been demonstrated that the proposed approach is able to achieve the significant improvement in the patient outcomes."

↓

Suggested

"These results show that the proposed approach significantly improves patient outcomes."

21 → 11 words · voice preserved · same meaning

JOURNAL CLUB · STAY CURRENT

Research intelligence, delivered to your inbox.

PeerReviewAI monitors PubMed weekly and synthesizes what matters in your field — so you spend less time searching and more time reading what counts.You choose your topics and preferred journals in your profile — every edition is built around what matters to you.

Monthly Digest

FREE

Monthly Digest

A curated synthesis of recent research:

Choose up to 2 topics and 2 journals
Multi-paper synthesis across your chosen topics
Evidence direction and clinical relevance for each finding
Bottom-line takeaway you can act on
Delivered the first Sunday of every month

Weekly Edition

$19.99/MO

Weekly Edition

Seven content formats, rotating weekly:

Choose up to 5 topics and 5 journals
Latest Research — multi-paper synthesis of what just published
Questions — AI identifies a question the literature can answer, then finds the papers that answer it
Landmark Papers — deep analysis of foundational work
Historical Narrative — a serialized chapter-by-chapter history of your field, delivered one chapter per week
Methodology Deep Dives — how the science gets done (trial design, statistical methods, systematic review technique)
Clinical Scenarios — case-based reasoning that connects evidence to practice

Plus a "What's New" brief in every edition — no repeated conclusions, no recycled content.

Ready when you are

Upload a manuscript.
Get a real review back.

Upload your manuscript See a worked example

A second opinion,never a verdict.