Use cases
The review is tuned to your study type.
The same $49 Peer Review, with the reporting checklist, the statistics review and the rejection patterns that matter for your design. Pick the page that matches the manuscript you are submitting.
By study type
Five starting points.
RCTs & trial protocols
AI Peer Review for Randomized Controlled Trials
Randomized trials are judged on reporting completeness first. Registration, primary-outcome discipline, randomization and blinding descriptions, and a flow diagram are where trials fail before anyone reads the discussion.
Cohort, case-control & cross-sectional
AI Peer Review for Observational Studies
Observational manuscripts are rejected for the same reasons in every study of rejection: statistics, overinterpretation, and methods that cannot be reproduced. STROBE exists because those gaps are predictable.
PRISMA 2020 & extensions
AI Peer Review for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
A systematic review is only as trustworthy as its references and its search. Reference errors are common in the literature, fabricated citations are now a documented risk, and retractions inside an included-study list are invisible unless someone checks every DOI.
CARE checklist
AI Peer Review for Case Reports
Case reports are desk-rejected more than any other article type because editors ask one question first: what is new here? The CARE checklist and a clear statement of the report's contribution are what get a case past that question.
First manuscripts
AI Peer Review for Residents, Fellows and PhD Students
Peer review is harder on unknown authors. The status-bias experiments below are not folklore; they are randomized. A first manuscript needs to be cleaner than a famous one, and it usually cannot afford a $1,500 scientific edit.