First manuscripts

Residents, Fellows and PhD Students: reviewed like a reviewer would

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.

Start a review — $49See a full sample review
For the manuscript you're submitting · no accept/reject verdict
What the review checks

Built around The matching reporting guideline.

The review detects the study design and routes the manuscript to the matching checklist automatically; you do not need to know which guideline applies.
  • A 16-section review of methods, statistics, interpretation, limitations and writing, written as a reviewer would write it, with major and minor issues separated.
  • Reporting-guideline audit for the detected design, and a compliance audit against the target journal's author instructions.
  • Every reference checked against PubMed and Crossref with retraction screening.
  • Journal formatting applied to the .docx as tracked changes, included, so the submission matches the instructions on the first try.
  • Pay per manuscript, no subscription; the review PDF downloads automatically when the run completes.
The evidence

Why this matters, in numbers.

Each figure is quoted from its primary source; the bracketed number links to the reference below. Verified 2026-09-12.
23% → 65%

The same paper was rejected by 23% of reviewers when a Nobel laureate was the visible author, 48% when anonymized, and 65% when an unknown early-career author was shown. [28]

1.63× / 2.10×

Single-blind reviewers were 1.63 times more likely to recommend papers from famous authors, 1.58 times for top universities, and 2.10 times for top companies, and bid for 22% fewer papers. [27]

8 of 9 rejected

When 12 already-published articles were resubmitted to the journals that had published them, only 3 of 38 editors and reviewers noticed, and 8 of the 9 that went through review were rejected. [17]

9 in 10

Nine out of ten authors believe peer review improved the last paper they published, in a 2009 survey of more than 4,000 researchers. [25]

13 weeks

Authors reported an average first-response time of 13 weeks, ranging from 8–9 weeks in medicine and public health to 16–18 weeks in economics, mathematics and the humanities. [5]

75% of editors

75% of journal editors say finding reviewers and getting them to accept invitations is the hardest part of their job. [6]

From Peer review statistics 2026, 89 verified statistics
What you get

One pass, $49.

Included
  • 16-section review
  • Every reference checked against PubMed and Crossref; status per reference; retraction screening on every DOI
  • Audit against the target journal's author instructions
  • Journal formatting applied to your .docx as Word tracked changes, included
Ground rules
  • No accept/reject verdict.
  • Zero Data Retention (Anthropic); never stored or used for training.
  • $49 per manuscript, no subscription. Journal Brief $2.99 per paper (first free). ESL add-on $19.99.
  • Full 16-section sample review published.
What it cannot do

It cannot detect fabricated or falsified data, manipulated images, or anything that is not visible in the manuscript text and references. It finds the manuscript-visible problems that reviewers and editors find, before they do.

Protected by Anthropic’s Zero Data Retention
Your manuscript is never stored, logged, or used for training.
FAQ

Questions, answered.

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

Sources

Sources cited on this page

Every figure on this page is quoted from the primary source listed here. Verification dates are recorded per source.
  1. [1]Huisman J, Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective. Scientometrics 2017. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5 PMID 29056794.peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC / Crossref record) · verified 2026-09-12
  2. [2]Publons. 2018 Global State of Peer Review. Clarivate Analytics; 2018. publons.com/static/Publons-Global-State-Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdfindustry report (PDF on file) · verified 2026-09-12
  3. [3]Peters Douglas P., Ceci Stephen J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1982. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00011183peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC / Crossref record) · verified 2026-09-12
  4. [4]Mulligan Adrian, Hall Louise, Raphael Ellen Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012. doi:10.1002/asi.22798peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC / Crossref record) · verified 2026-09-12
  5. [5]Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2017. doi:10.1073/pnas.1707323114 PMID 29138317.peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC / Crossref record) · verified 2026-09-12
  6. [6]Huber J et al. Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2022. doi:10.1073/pnas.2205779119 PMID 36194633.peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC / Crossref record) · verified 2026-09-12

Submit the version a reviewer would struggle to fault.

Upload the manuscript, name the target journal, and get the review, the reference table, the checklist audit and the formatted .docx back in minutes.

Start a review — $49Read the sample review
For the manuscript you're submitting