AI Peer Review · Pre-Submission Manuscript Review

AI Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts.

Get comprehensive, structured feedback on your manuscript in minutes — not months. Methodology, statistics, reporting compliance, references, and language quality, all in one review.

Review Your ManuscriptSee how it works →
Definition

What is AI peer review?

The term covers three different things. Only one of them is a substitute for the checks an editor runs first.

AI peer review is the use of a language model to evaluate a research manuscript the way a journal reviewer would: methods, statistics, interpretation, reporting completeness and references, returned as a structured report. In practice the phrase is used for three different products. Free generators write review-style prose from pasted text. Writing assistants score a draft inside their editor. Dedicated manuscript review tools check the manuscript against external evidence: whether each reference exists in PubMed or Crossref and has been retracted, whether the reporting checklist for the study design is complete, and whether the target journal’s instructions are met.

PeerReviewAI is the third kind, built for authors before submission. It issues no accept-or-reject verdict; the decision stays with editors. We compared 20 tools that use the term on eight verifiable criteria, quoted from each vendor’s own site, on the AI peer review tools comparison.

30.85% vs 28.58%

GPT-4's feedback overlapped with human reviewers' points 30.85% of the time for Nature-family papers and 39.23% for ICLR, comparable to overlap between two human reviewers (28.58% and 35.25%).

Liang W, Zhang Y, Cao H, et al. Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis. NEJM AI 2024. doi:10.1056/AIoa2400196 (arXiv:2310.01783).
2.58 of 9

BMJ reviewers found an average of 2.58 of nine major errors deliberately inserted into a test paper; training raised this only to about 3.

Schroter S et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2008.
55% / 18%

55% of the references ChatGPT-3.5 generated for literature reviews were fabricated, versus 18% for GPT-4; 43% and 24% of the real ones contained substantive errors.

Walters WH, Wilder EI. Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT. Scientific reports 2023.
Sources verified 12 September 2026 · 89 peer review statistics
The case for a second opinion

Pre-submission review that catches what you miss.

Submitting a manuscript without independent review is like performing surgery without imaging. You might get it right, but you're working blind to problems that are obvious to someone else.

PeerReviewAI surfaces those problems before you submit — methodological gaps, statistical issues, incomplete reporting, reference errors and retracted citations, and language weaknesses that trigger desk rejection or painful revisions.

Structured, comprehensive, delivered live as it generates. You watch the analysis unfold on screen, section by section.

Inside the review

What the review covers.

Seven evaluation dimensions, one structured pass — each with findings tied to the section they came from.
Scientific substance
01
Methodology & Study Design
Checks whether your design fits your research question, whether methods are detailed enough to replicate, and whether sources of bias are addressed.
02
Statistical Analysis
Reviews statistical methods, assumptions, and sample-size justification. Flags multiple-comparison issues and inappropriate test selection.
03
Reporting Guideline Compliance
Identifies your study type and checks the manuscript against the appropriate reporting guideline — CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, and 16 others.
04
Reference Verification
Cross-checks every citation against published records — flagging errors and discrepancies between what you cited and what was actually published.
Polish & presentation
05
Language & Clarity
Flags writing that may confuse reviewers — tone, precision, and readability issues across the manuscript.
06
Figures & Tables
Assesses whether figures and tables are appropriately referenced, clearly described, and consistent with the results reported in the text.
07
Ethics & Declarations
Checks for required ethics statements, conflict of interest declarations, data availability statements, and other journal-required disclosures.
Pick the depth that fits

Two review tiers for different needs.

Pay per manuscript. No subscription. Go deeper when the manuscript matters more.
For papers you're reading
Journal Brief
$2.99per manuscript

A structured critical appraisal of any published paper — key findings, strengths, limitations, and discussion questions, backed by study detection, literature search, and reference verification. Your first brief is free with every new account.

For the manuscript you're submitting
Peer Review
$49per manuscript

The complete pre-submission review of your own manuscript — everything we do, in one pass:

  • 16-section deep review — methodology, statistics, conclusions vs. evidence, and more
  • Reference verification against PubMed and Crossref — retracted citations flagged
  • Journal compliance audit against your target journal's author instructions
  • Journal-formatting tracked changes in your .docx when you select a target journal
Premium Journal Club · $19.99/mo

Evidence that finds you — not the other way around.

Every account includes a free monthly journal club email — a structured critical appraisal of recent research in your field. Want it weekly? Upgrade to Premium for $19.99/mo — seven rotating content types, up to 5 fields of interest, and content that builds on itself.

$19.99/mo
Free with every account · Premium — cancel anytime
Learn More
Add-on · ESL Language Editing · $19.99

For authors writing in a second language.

Add dedicated language editing to your Peer Review. Not generic grammar checking — it targets the patterns that mark ESL academic writing: article usage, preposition selection, hedging, academic register, nominalizations, and collocations. Delivered as a Language Quality section in your review and as tracked changes in Word.

$19.99
add-on per manuscript
Add ESL editing
Real-time streaming

Watch your review generate live.

No black box · no waiting

No 30-minute wait for an email report. Each section of feedback appears on screen as it generates — methodology first, then statistics, then reporting compliance, and so on.

No black box. You watch it happen, section by section.

Generating · Statistical Analysis
Statistical methods & assumptions
Primary outcome analysis uses a Cox proportional hazards model. Proportional-hazards assumption is not explicitly tested; consider Schoenfeld residuals
Five secondary outcomes reported, but methods state no adjustment for multiple
Next · Reporting Guideline Compliance
~30,000
Journals in our database
Tailored to your target journal

The right review for the right journal.

Select your target journal and the review is tailored to its requirements. The database covers ~30,000 journals across every scientific discipline, with author instructions for 141+ major journals cross-referenced during review — not just general best practices.

Don't see your journal's specific requirements reflected? Upload your target journal's author guidelines directly and they become part of your review. The system incorporates them automatically — checking your manuscript against the exact formatting, structure, and submission requirements your journal demands. Guidelines uploaded by one user benefit the entire community. Instead of spending hours reading through pages of author instructions and manually reformatting, upload the guidelines and let PeerReviewAI handle the compliance checking for you.

Protected by Anthropic’s Zero Data Retention

Your intellectual property is processed for the review — and then gone.

Your manuscript is never stored, logged, or used for training. PeerReviewAI is built on Anthropic’s Zero Data Retention — the architectural foundation, not a checkbox on a settings page.

Never stored.
Manuscripts are processed for the review and then discarded — not retained on our servers after the session ends.
Never logged.
Manuscript content does not appear in our application logs. Only operational metadata (word counts, timings) is kept.
Never used for training.
Your work is never used to train, fine-tune, or improve any model — ours or anyone else's.
Before you choose

Five questions to ask any AI review tool.

Including ours. Every answer below is one you can check yourself.
05 questions
01

Does it verify references, or ask the AI whether they look right?

Ours: every citation is matched against 40 million PubMed records via NCBI and Crossref, with a per-reference status and PMID printed in the review.

Test any tool: ask it for the PMID.
02

Does it screen for retracted citations — against what?

Ours: every DOI-bearing reference is checked, and a flag links to the retraction notice itself.

03

Does it check the actual reporting checklist?

CONSORT 2025, STROBE, PRISMA, ARRIVE 2.0 — the full checklists, item by item, not a “formatting score.”

04

Which model writes the review?

Claude Opus, under Anthropic’s Zero Data Retention.

If a tool won’t name its model, ask why.
05

Can you read a full review before paying?

Ours are at /examples/peer-review-report (a complete sample report, every section exactly as generated) and /case-studies (reference audits mapped to public retraction notices).

Ready when you are

Ready to see what reviewers will see?

FAQ

Questions, answered.

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