Catch what reviewers will, before you submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan in about two to three minutes. Get your score, top risks, and citation integrity check before you submit.
Calibrated with 35+ CNS-experienced reviewers and senior scientists from publication and institutional contexts like these
Logos indicate publication or institutional context for the calibration network, not endorsement. Automated reviews apply the calibrated rubric; no human reads your manuscript on the AI path.
From researchers
Designed for researchers who demand rigor.
Depth
Catch desk-reject reasons before reviewers do
We surface the same structural critiques editors flag in triage: underpowered statistics, scope mismatch, missing controls, claims the data doesn't support. Before submission, when you can still fix them.
“The negatives were spot on, a 'why did I not think of that' moment.”
Like having your own peer reviewer on demand.
G.T.B.
Practising clinician, Singapore
BMJ Case Reports submission
Precision
Methodological feedback general-purpose AI can't reach
Manusights runs a diagnostic rubric our 35+ reviewer network co-designed from how real top-tier reviewers judge manuscripts, plus claim-level citation verification and a retraction and integrity gate that general-purpose chatbots don't run.
“Specific, claim-level, actionable engagement with the actual science.”
Peer review tells you whether you passed a gate. This told me what my work actually needed.
Hector Damian Cirino
Independent Researcher, Atmospheric Science
Harmora Framework
Speed
Reviewer-grade insight in about 30 minutes
Most papers return in about 30 minutes of end-to-end work. Hundreds of frontier LLM calls under the hood, structured against the rubric, condensed into the issues that matter. Iterate before submission, not after rejection.
“It helped me restructure my paper after a rejection. It's now under review at AJAE.”
Extremely helpful for identifying realistic target journals.
Anaëlle Denieul-Babrot
Recent PhD, Economics
INRAE, France
Candor
Criticism that holds up when real reviews arrive
A pre-submission review earns its keep by telling you what reviewers will eventually say, while you can still act on it. That means naming the limitations of the work as plainly as the strengths, before an editor does.
“Both candid and correct about the strengths and limitations of my manuscript.”
Seeing this feedback earlier would have saved me learning it the hard way.
Bo Cowgill
Assistant Professor, Economics
Columbia Business School
Standout
The one researchers keep after trying the others
General-purpose assistants polish prose. Manusights does the editorial work: where to submit, what reviewers will object to, and which citations you missed. It's the difference between a writing aid and a pre-submission review.
“I've tried a few AI review tools, but Manusights stands out, almost like having an editor by your side at all times.”
It foresees what editors and reviewers will object to and drafts responses with the exact changes needed. Just knowing where to submit saved me months.
Lora Chen
Researcher, Biomedical Research
University of Hong Kong
Value
Reviewer-grade feedback at a fraction of the cost
Hiring an outside reviewer or editorial consultant to read a full manuscript runs into the hundreds or thousands and takes weeks. A Full Review is $39 and comes back in about half an hour. Researchers keep telling us the feedback lands close enough to make the comparison fair.
“Roughly 1/30th of the cost of a true outside, independent reviewer.”
The results were really good and are helping us refocus the paper across more of the government-sponsored entities.
M. Cary Collins
Professor of Finance
Providence College
Quotes used with permission or quoted verbatim from the author's own public posts. Across the broader Manusights testimonial wall, names are anonymized to protect client confidentiality unless authors explicitly grant permission.
Privacy, by design
Your research stays yours: private, secure, and never used to train AI.
Your content is secure
Encrypted in transit and at rest. Strong access controls and modern security posture. Read our Privacy Policy.
Never used for training
Manuscripts are processed with bounded retention and purpose-limited access. Nothing you upload is ever used as training data for any model.
Documented privacy controls
Subprocessors, encryption details, model-provider controls, and incident-response posture are documented in our Trust Center.
How a review is produced
Every review follows a reviewer-calibrated process.
Manusights is not a single prompt to a single model. Each Full Review runs a structured multi-stage analysis against a reviewer-calibrated rubric for submission readiness.
8
Score dimensions
Covering claims, evidence, methods, figures, citations, journal fit, reviewer risk, and revision priority
Top-tier
Review patterns
The rubric is calibrated against real selective-journal review patterns
~30
Minutes
Average end-to-end turnaround
Validated against real peer review
We analyzed a preprint in 2022.
Nature Communications published it in 2025.
Three reviewers. Two rounds of revision. When Nature Communications published the transparent peer review file, we compared our diagnostic against every major concern raised, including field-specific issues like AQP3 hydrogen peroxide transport that require deep immunology expertise to catch.
reviewer concerns
matched
before the actual
peer review
to generate
the report
What we caught (click to compare)
Manusights report (2022)
DFP00173 cannot distinguish water transport from glycerol/H₂O₂ transport or structural AQP3 functions. Hara-Chikuma et al. (2008) is cited but not adequately discussed. If the inhibitor effect is mediated through H₂O₂ transport blockade, the entire water-influx model requires revision.
Nature Comms reviewer (2025)
AQP3 is permeable to glycerol and H₂O₂ as well as water. Glycerol and H₂O₂ uptake via AQPs are known to be required for T-cell migration and activation.
Result: Authors ran catalase experiments to rule out H₂O₂ as the mechanism.
Every major concern across all three reviewers, flagged before they ever saw the paper.
The authors spent months in revision doing experiments our report flagged up front. That's 3-6 months of delay for issues our Readiness Scan and Full Review flag up front.
Calibration network
Calibrated with 35+ CNS-experienced reviewers.
At the beginning, Manusights worked with reviewers and senior scientists with Nature, Cell, Science, and other selective-journal experience to map the failure patterns strong reviewers actually notice. Automated Full Reviews apply that calibrated rubric consistently; they are not represented as live human peer review.
500+
Papers published
Top-tier
Nature, Cell, Science publication history
50+
Years combined experience
Full Professor
18+ years experience
PhD
Full Professor
24+ years experience
MD, PhD
Associate Professor
14+ years experience
PhD
Senior Scientist
16+ years experience
PhD
+31
More calibration contributors
across oncology, cardiology, infectious disease, and more
Calibration contributors come from institutions including
Earn free reviews
Invite a colleague: they get 25% off their first review, and you get a free Full Review when they buy. Or earn credits by posting about Manusights, or acknowledging us in a published paper.
Questions
Everything you need to know.
Manusights is a pre-submission manuscript review built specifically for academic researchers. You upload your paper, the engine runs a reviewer-calibrated diagnostic rubric built from real top-tier-journal peer-review patterns, and you get back the issues editors and reviewers are most likely to challenge. Before submission, when you can still fix them. The free Readiness Scan returns in about two to three minutes; the Full Review delivers in about 30 minutes.
Grammar tools work at the sentence level: comma placement, word choice, passive voice. Manusights works at the manuscript level: scope fit, methodology gaps, claims your data doesn't support, citations that don't say what you say they say, figures that need redesign. We don't fix your sentences. We tell you what reviewers will reject. Run a grammar tool after Manusights, not instead of it.
General-purpose models are useful for brainstorming and rewriting, but they often drift toward agreeable feedback. Manusights is built for a narrower job: applying a reviewer-calibrated diagnostic rubric to the failure patterns real editors flag in triage. The Full Review runs a structured multi-stage analysis, not a single chat prompt, so the output stays focused on the submission risks you can still fix.
Free Readiness Scan: about two to three minutes. Full Review: about 30 minutes from upload to .docx report. Most papers deliver faster than that; we set the expectation at 30 minutes because the report runs through a structured reviewer-grade diagnostic, not a single chat prompt. Expert Review (real human reviewer, premium tier): 3-7 days depending on manuscript length and field.
Yes. Manuscript content is not used for model training, and automated review access is limited to the systems needed for ingestion, analysis, report delivery, support, and reliability. For the Expert Review tier, all reviewers operate under formal NDAs and only your assigned reviewer sees your work.