AI Peer Review Checker
Get AI-simulated reviewer feedback on your manuscript, identify the structural and technical weaknesses peer reviewers are most likely to flag.
Check my manuscript, it's freeNo account required · Results in <2 minutes · PDF, Word & LaTeX
What is an AI peer review checker?
An AI peer review checker analyzes your manuscript from a reviewer's perspective, identifying the types of issues that commonly trigger revision requests or rejections. While it cannot evaluate scientific merit, it catches the technical and structural weaknesses that reviewers consistently flag: missing methodological details, unsupported conclusions, structural problems, unclear writing, and inconsistent data presentation. Running a pre-submission AI review helps you address these issues before they reach a real reviewer.
What AI peer review catches
Methodological completeness
Flag missing details in the Methods section that reviewers typically request.
Unsupported claims
Identify conclusions not backed by the presented results.
Discussion quality
Check that limitations are acknowledged and findings are appropriately contextualized.
Result presentation
Validate that all claimed results are presented with sufficient data.
Internal consistency
Detect contradictions between sections (Abstract vs Results, Methods vs Results).
Citation gaps
Identify areas where additional citations are expected by reviewers.
Checks relevant to this topic
Part of our 80+ automated checks
Methods completeness
Check for sufficient methodological detail for reproducibility.
Limitations section
Verify limitations are discussed appropriately.
Abstract vs body consistency
Detect contradictions between abstract and full paper.
Unsupported conclusions
Flag conclusions not justified by the presented results.
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
Frequently asked questions
No. Peer reviewers evaluate scientific merit, methodological validity, and contribution to the field, all requiring domain expertise. AI review catches technical and structural issues that are independent of scientific content.
The most common reviewer requests are: more detail in Methods, clearer presentation of results, stronger discussion of limitations, additional statistical analysis, and more relevant citations.
Use the AI checker before submitting to fix technical issues first. Then after receiving reviewer comments, use it again to verify your revisions address the structural feedback before resubmission.