Pre-submission review you can trust.
Run the Free Readiness Scan in about 1-2 minutes. Get your score, top risks, and citation integrity check before you submit.
Trusted by researchers and reviewers at leading universities and journals worldwide
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, giving me a 'why did I not think of that' kind of moment.”
The Manusights evaluation of my draft was like having your own peer reviewer on demand. The recommendations are actionable and helpful, providing more inspiration and motivation to improve my work.
G.T.B.
Practising clinician, Singapore
BMJ Case Reports submission
Precision
Methodological feedback general-purpose AI can't reach
Manusights runs the diagnostic rubric our 35+ reviewer network co-developed from real peer reviews at top-tier journals. ChatGPT and Claude don't have that training data. We do.
“What Manusights gave back was specific, claim-level, actionable engagement with the actual science.”
Standard peer review doesn't do this. It filters. It withholds. It tells you whether you passed a gate, not what your work actually needs. Independent researchers especially need this and almost never have access to it.
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 substantially restructure my paper after a peer-review rejection. It's now under review at AJAE.”
Manusights has been extremely helpful in identifying realistic target journals. With ChatGPT, there is often a kind of confirmation bias, which seems much less present in the feedback provided by Manusights.
Anaëlle Denieul-Babrot
Recent PhD, Economics
INRAE, France
Quotes used with permission. 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 under zero-retention contracts. Nothing you upload is stored long-term or ever used as training data for any model.
Anthropic Privacy Partner
Verified partner status with Anthropic. Subprocessors, encryption details, and incident-response posture documented in our Trust Center.
How a review is produced
Every review leverages massive parallel compute.
Manusights is not a single prompt to a single model. Each review runs hundreds of structured calls against the same rubric our 35+ reviewer network co-developed.
2+
Hours
of parallel frontier-model LLM compute per review
Hundreds
Of frontier LLM calls
Stress-test every claim, citation, and section
~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.
The training data
Trained by reviewers who actually publish in Nature, Cell, Science.
35+ active top-tier reviewers co-developed the rubric. Their real peer-review work, on real manuscripts, is the training data. The engine you run runs the same diagnostic they use.
500+
Papers published
35+
Reviewer network with 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 reviewers
across oncology, cardiology, infectious disease, and more
Training reviewers come from institutions including
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 the same diagnostic rubric our 35+ reviewer network co-developed from real top-tier-journal peer reviews, and you get back the issues editors and reviewers will flag. Before submission, when you can still fix them. The free Readiness Scan returns in 1-2 minutes; the full Diagnostic 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 will tell you your paper is great. They were trained to be agreeable. Manusights runs the diagnostic rubric our 35+ reviewer network co-developed from real peer reviews at top-tier journals: the same failure patterns real editors flag in triage. Across hundreds of structured calls per review, not a single prompt. Researchers tell us repeatedly that ChatGPT confirmation bias is the thing we don't do.
Free Readiness Scan: 1-2 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 under the hood we run 2+ hours of parallel compute and hundreds of frontier LLM calls per review. Expert Review (real human reviewer, premium tier): 3-7 days depending on manuscript length and field.
Pre-submission feedback is standard practice in academia. Every researcher circulates drafts to colleagues, presents at lab meetings, and seeks input before submission. Manusights gives you that same kind of structured editorial scrutiny, trained on the real peer-review work of 35+ top-tier-journal reviewers, before you submit. Your ideas and your work remain entirely your own.