Catch every issue before your reviewers do
Our AI manuscript checker provides instant feedback on format-level checks to prevent desk rejection. Detect structural weaknesses and missing elements in your PDF, Word, or LaTeX manuscript in minutes.
Files permanently deleted after processing.
Not used for AI training.
Already used by researchers from leading universities
Academic Paper Reviewer
Our format-level review tool checks your manuscript for the same compliance issues that journal editors screen for during initial review. Whether you're preparing a PDF, Word, or LaTeX manuscript, our journal submission checker identifies format-level issues that lead to desk rejection—ensuring your manuscript meets submission requirements before you submit.
How It Works: Your Paper Review in Minutes
Upload your manuscript
Upload your PDF, Word (DOCX), or LaTeX manuscript for an AI journal compliance check. No account required—just provide your email.
AI analysis
Our system performs over 80 checks covering structure, citations, metadata, language quality, and formatting consistency.
Get your report
Receive a detailed review with actionable suggestions, organized by impact and category. Free preview available.
Journal Submission Checklist Made Simple
Stop second-guessing whether your manuscript is ready. Get a comprehensive journal compliance check that mirrors what editors look for during initial screening, ensuring peer review readiness with over 80 format-level checks across key categories:
Language and Writing Quality
Manuscript Structure
Title and Abstract
Metadata and Authors
Citations and References
Figures and Tables
Acronyms
Section Headings
Keywords
Funding Statements
Used by researchers from leading universities
Alumni from these institutions use our tool to improve their research papers
Harvard University
Stanford University
Columbia University
New York University
Johns Hopkins University
University of Melbourne
Kyoto University
Tsinghua University
Peking University
Zhejiang University
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
University of Texas at Austin
Seoul National University
University of Washington
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
University of Technology Sydney
Arizona State University
Boston University
École de technologie supérieure
University of Alberta
University of Maryland, College Park
University of New South Wales
University of Southern California
University of California, San Diego
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
University of California, Berkeley
Imperial College London
Ohio State University
Saint Louis University
Max Planck Society
Mines Paris - PSL
Sapienza University of Rome
Université libre de Bruxelles
ShanghaiTech University
Southeast University
South China University of Technology
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
George Washington University
The practical edge your peers already use
Across disciplines and career stages, researchers reduce bottlenecks and submit with confidence: clearer drafts, easier guideline compliance, and less back and forth with co‑authors and reviewers.
I use it to review my students' papers. It instantly highlights typos, missing references, and unclear sections, helping me focus my feedback on the quality of the research instead of surface errors.
Ilyass
Professor in Mechanical Engineering, ÉTS Montréal
I relied on it throughout my thesis to strengthen my writing. It suggested clearer phrasing, improved flow between sections, and ensured my references were complete before the final deadline.
Manon
Master's Student in Speech Therapy
I write research in both Portuguese and English, and it adapts perfectly to either language. It provided precise feedback in Portuguese, helping me maintain academic tone and consistency across my drafts.
Afonso
PhD Candidate, UFPE
It gave excellent advice on how to rephrase and present ideas more clearly and concisely. The suggestions helped me refine my arguments and make my research more impactful.
Félix
Postdoc Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology
A round of suggestions helped to generally refine the text of my paper and, moreover, to present some of its key points in a more focused form.
Oleg
Professor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
I use it to review my students' papers. It instantly highlights typos, missing references, and unclear sections, helping me focus my feedback on the quality of the research instead of surface errors.
Ilyass
Professor in Mechanical Engineering, ÉTS Montréal
I relied on it throughout my thesis to strengthen my writing. It suggested clearer phrasing, improved flow between sections, and ensured my references were complete before the final deadline.
Manon
Master's Student in Speech Therapy
I write research in both Portuguese and English, and it adapts perfectly to either language. It provided precise feedback in Portuguese, helping me maintain academic tone and consistency across my drafts.
Afonso
PhD Candidate, UFPE
It gave excellent advice on how to rephrase and present ideas more clearly and concisely. The suggestions helped me refine my arguments and make my research more impactful.
Félix
Postdoc Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology
A round of suggestions helped to generally refine the text of my paper and, moreover, to present some of its key points in a more focused form.
Oleg
Professor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
All the ‘please fix’ comments your reviewers would leave, instantly
Our manuscript formatting check identifies what reviewers flag first: unresolved citations, unclear phrasing, inconsistent headings, and missing pieces—essential for PhD thesis review and postdoc manuscript preparation.
Language and Writing Quality
Typos and grammar errors
Catch spelling mistakes and grammatical issues before submission.
Subject-verb disagreement
Identify mismatched subjects and verbs throughout your manuscript.
Unclear phrasing
Flag sentences that may confuse readers or lack clarity.
Non-academic tone
Detect informal language that doesn't match academic standards.
Non-native English errors
Identify common mistakes made by non-native English speakers—essential for ESL academic editing.
Manuscript Structure
Missing abstracts or sections
Ensure all required sections are present and complete as part of your journal compliance check.
Content misplacement
Detect content in the wrong section (e.g., results reported in Methods).
Section ordering issues
Identify sections out of sequence (e.g., Results before Methods).
Duplicate sections
Find when the same section type appears multiple times inappropriately.
Inconsistent heading hierarchy
Verify heading levels follow proper structure.
Broken flow and transitions
Identify abrupt transitions between paragraphs and sections.
Duplicate content
Find repeated text that should be consolidated or removed.
Title and Abstract
Missing abstract elements
Abstract checker: Check that abstracts include all required components.
Abstract structure compliance
Structured abstract validation: Verify structured abstracts follow required format with proper subheadings.
Exceeded word limits
Verify abstract length meets journal requirements.
Vague or unclear titles
Ensure titles concisely and clearly communicate the paper's subject and scope.
Metadata and Authors
Missing corresponding author
Identify who should be marked as corresponding author.
Missing emails or ORCIDs
Affiliation and ORCID check: Confirm contact information is complete and valid.
Personal email addresses
Suggest institutional emails instead of personal ones for academic credibility.
Incomplete affiliations
Ensure all author affiliations are properly formatted with department, institution, and location.
Incorrect author order
Verify author sequence matches journal requirements.
Inconsistent author formatting
Flag variations in author name presentation across the document.
Citations and References
Missing bibliography entries
Citation and reference checker: Find citations in text without matching references.
Citation-reference mismatches
Identify citations without matching references and vice versa.
Reference ordering errors
Check alphabetical (author-date) or sequential (numeric) ordering is correct.
Duplicate references
Identify and merge duplicate bibliography entries.
Missing essential reference fields
Verify authors, publication year, journal details are complete.
Invalid or incorrect DOI/URL
Verify that provided DOIs and URLs match the reference information.
Excessive self-citation
Detect when bibliography relies too heavily on authors' own previous work.
Venue bias
Identify over-reliance on a single journal or conference series.
Outdated references
Flag bibliographies with insufficient recent citations.
Time gaps in citations
Detect significant gaps in citation years suggesting missed research waves.
Source diversity issues
Detect disproportionate reliance on non-peer-reviewed sources (preprints, URLs).
Figures and Tables
Cited but absent visuals
Figure and table consistency: Find references to figures or tables that don't exist.
Missing or reused captions
Ensure each visual has a unique, descriptive caption.
Missing caption details
Flag captions missing units, sample sizes, or statistical indicators.
Uncited visual elements
Find figures/tables that exist but aren't referenced in text.
References out of order
Check that figure and table references follow sequence.
Incorrect numbering
Verify figure and table numbering is sequential.
Acronyms
Undefined abbreviations
Find acronyms used before their first definition.
Inconsistent usage
Detect variations in how acronyms are written.
Outdated acronyms
Identify acronyms that may need updating or correction.
Acronym overuse
Flag excessive acronym usage that may confuse readers.
Section Headings
Section heading spelling errors
Catch typos in section titles that affect credibility.
Headings don't match content
Verify headings accurately describe their sections.
Inconsistent capitalization
Flag capitalization inconsistencies in headings.
Vague or redundant titles
Ensure section headings are clear and distinct.
Inconsistent hierarchy
Check that heading levels follow proper structure.
Wrong heading depth
Ensure heading levels match journal style guidelines.
Keywords
Missing keywords
Keywords section checker: Ensure keywords section is present in the document.
Generic or irrelevant keywords
Flag keywords that are too broad or don't match content.
Insufficient keyword count
Verify appropriate number of keywords (typically 3-10).
Keyword formatting issues
Check capitalization and formatting consistency.
Funding Statements
Missing funding acknowledgment
Ensure required funding disclosures are present.
Incomplete grant information
Verify grant numbers and agency names are included.
Funding statement formatting
Check proper formatting of multiple funding sources.
Frequently asked questions
Everything researchers ask before their first check from upload formats to privacy policy. Still curious? Drop us a note and we'll walk you through it.
General
CheckMyManuscript is built specifically for academic publishing. Unlike tools like Grammarly, it doesn't just fix grammar — it performs over 80 checks that reflect real journal standards, covering structure, metadata, citations, and submission readiness.
No account is required. You just need to provide an email address to receive your report and downloadable files. There's no signup, no password, and no login — just upload your manuscript and get results.
You can upload academic papers from any field. We support manuscripts in Word, LaTeX, and PDF formats, as long as they follow a typical research structure.
Yes. Our system supports documents written in any language. The checks are performed in the language of your manuscript, and the suggestions and explanations are also provided in that same language — no translation required.
Most reviews are completed in under 2 minutes, depending on document length and complexity.
If you have a question that's not answered here, please contact us at contact@checkmymanuscript.com. We're here to help!
File Upload & Supported Formats
You can upload DOCX, LaTeX (TEX/ZIP/GZ), or PDF files.
Yes. We understand how important confidentiality is in academic publishing. Your manuscript is processed securely and automatically deleted after review. No human ever reads or stores your file, and you retain full rights to your content.
Yes, we can handle large files under 200Mb. However, please note that the review time may increase for very long documents.
You can include them in your manuscript, but our checks focus on the main text. Figures and tables are reviewed only for references and consistency — not for content quality.
Privacy & Security
No. We do not store any files on our servers. Your manuscript is processed securely, then automatically deleted once the review is complete.
No human reads or accesses your manuscript. All reviews are handled by automated systems running on encrypted infrastructure.
Files are temporarily processed during review, then permanently deleted within minutes. Nothing is retained after the review ends.
Review Accuracy
Yes. The feedback is tailored to real publishing standards and academic writing expectations. While it's not a replacement for peer review, it helps you catch issues that often lead to rejection.
That's completely fine. The tool provides suggestions, but you remain in control of your work. You can accept, ignore, or modify each suggestion as you see fit.
No tool can guarantee acceptance, but our checks help reduce preventable errors that often result in desk rejection or delays — especially for first-time or non-native authors.
Yes. You can re-upload a revised version at any time, either using the free check again or by purchasing another full review.
Definitely. Many of our checks are designed to support clarity, academic tone, and English consistency — which are especially useful for researchers writing in a second language.
Payment & Access
The free version gives you a submission readiness overview and a sample of the suggestions found during the review. This helps you understand the types of issues detected without revealing every suggestion. To unlock the full list of detailed comments and fixes, you'll need to purchase the full report.
For $5.00, you get the full detailed report with improvement suggestions.
Since you can preview your report before purchasing, we don't offer refunds. If you're unsure, try the free version first.
Yes. We offer monthly plans for research labs, departments, or universities who want to provide access to their teams. If you're interested, contact us to discuss options.