Pre-submission review you can trust.
Run the Free Readiness Scan in about 60 seconds. Get your score, top risks, and citation integrity check before you submit.
Start with the Free Readiness Scan. Unlock the Full AI Diagnostic for $29. If you need deeper scientific feedback, choose Expert Review.
Experimental logic and controls
Statistical reporting quality
Figure and methods clarity
Journal fit and positioning
Citation integrity verification
Revision priority plan
500M+
Papers in citation database
35+
Expert reviewers (Nature/Cell/Science)
<30min
Average full report delivery
100%
Citation verification rate
Reference library
Reusable publishing datasets for authors and labs
The strongest Manusights reference pages are designed for repeat lookup: timelines, acceptance rates, and submission requirements in one place.
Dataset / reference guide
Peer Review Timelines by Journal
Reference-grade journal timeline data that authors, labs, and writing centers can cite when discussing realistic review timing.
Dataset / benchmark
Biomedical Journal Acceptance Rates
A field-organized acceptance-rate guide that works as a neutral benchmark when authors are deciding how selective to target.
Reference table
Journal Submission Specs
A high-utility submission table covering word limits, figure caps, reference limits, and formatting expectations.
Privacy PartnerYour manuscript never leaves your hands
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing. Your manuscript is not used for training.
Workflow
From draft to submission-ready in about 30 minutes.
One manuscript in, one reviewer-grade diagnostic out.
Upload
Upload your manuscript (PDF or Word) and choose a target journal.
Analyze
Our engine evaluates logic, methods, figures, and journal fit, then verifies citations against live sources.
Report
Receive a structured report with scores, evidence-backed feedback, journal fit, and a prioritized revision plan.
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 diagnostic flag up front.
Why this matters
The scientific record has a verification problem
AI tools are flooding science with hallucinated citations and unverified claims. Peer review is not catching it. We built Manusights to be the opposite.
0%
of ICLR 2026 peer reviews were fully AI-generated
0
hallucinated citations found in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
0
papers cited fabricated data before Nature caught it
“If an AI review tool doesn't verify its own citations, how can it verify yours?”
Every citation in every Manusights report is verified against CrossRef and PubMed. No hallucinated references. No fabricated DOIs. Every claim checked against reality.
Read the full analysisHow Manusights compares
See how we stack up against general AI tools
| Feature | Manusights | ChatGPT | Other tools |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citation verification | Live CrossRef + PubMed + Semantic Scholar API | Static knowledge, citations may be fabricated | No citation checking |
| Scoring methodology | Calibrated by active CNS peer reviewers | General language model training | Generic heuristics |
| Data handling | Zero-retention, auto-delete, never for training | May use for model training | Unclear policy |
| Coverage | 500M+ papers, 40+ journals | General knowledge up to cutoff | Limited database |
Choose how you want to start
Start with the Free Readiness Scan, or begin with the checklist.
Start here
Free preview first. Then unlock the Full AI Diagnostic for $29 with 15+ live citations, journal-fit analysis, figure-level callouts, and a prioritized fix list calibrated to your target journal.
- Six-section .docx with specific, cited feedback
- Reference integrity check (hallucinated citations, retractions)
- Journal fit score with ranked alternatives
- Experiment priority list (A/B/C)
- Full refund if not satisfied
Preview in about 60 seconds. Full report in about 30 minutes.
Pre-Submission Checklist
22 checks organized by the criteria editors apply before desk rejection. Written by researchers who have published in Cell, Nature, and Science. No algorithm, no AI: just the checklist.
- Journal targeting and scope check
- Cover letter and abstract review
- Methods, ethics, and compliance
- Pre-flight, before you hit submit
Instant download. No sign-up required.
Free to paid pathway
Get signal first, then decide depth
Start with the Free Readiness Scan. Unlock the Full AI Diagnostic for $29. If you need deeper scientific feedback, choose Expert Review.
Start with the free preview, inspect a real sample report, then decide whether the full AI diagnostic is worth unlocking.
Scope and limitations
- • Manusights is a pre-submission screening layer, not a replacement for peer review.
- • The diagnostic is strongest on structural, methodological, figure, and citation-integrity issues.
- • Subfield-specific mechanistic novelty calls may still require a human specialist reviewer.
When you need more depth
Expert review from scientists who publish in Cell, Nature, and Science
The AI diagnostic catches what algorithms can. But some manuscripts need a human scientist who has sat on the other side of the review process. Someone who has written the comments that decide whether a paper gets published.
Novelty Assessment
The broader connection between [System A] and [Phenotype] has been described previously and does not constitute the primary novelty. However, the present study describes a substantially more specific and mechanistically detailed pathway. The comprehensive description of this causal chain enhances the novelty considerably.
This is an ambitious and potentially high-impact study. A major strength is the breadth of data and analyses, bringing together human patient data, metagenomics, multiple in vivo disease models, and in vitro mechanistic experiments.
This is a 2x2 design. I recommend analyzing with two-way ANOVA with an interaction term. The key parameter is the interaction term B3, which tests whether the effect differs depending on treatment.
Verdict
Suitable candidate for a top-tier journal. With the statistical refinements and causality experiments outlined, the manuscript would be substantially strengthened.
Identifying details redacted. Full reviews are 10+ pages with figure-by-figure analysis.
Active expert reviewers
Each with publications in Cell, Nature, or Science
Turnaround time
Detailed feedback
What you get
"The reviewer caught a statistical framing issue in Figure 3 that would have guaranteed a major revision request. We fixed it before submission and got accepted with minor revisions."
- PI, immunology lab, R1 university
From researchers
What researchers say
From researchers who used the service before submitting to top-tier journals.
All testimonials anonymized to protect client confidentiality.
So we had this censoring issue in our survival analysis that nobody caught. And I mean nobody, two of my co-authors have biostatistics backgrounds. The report flagged it in like paragraph three. We fixed it before sending to PLOS Comp Bio and not a single reviewer brought up the stats. I don't know if that's because we fixed it or because they wouldn't have caught it either, but I'm not complaining.
Sarah L.
Postdoctoral Fellow, Computational Biology
Biostatistics group, R1 university (US)
Honestly I almost didn't buy it. $29 felt like it would be another generic "improve your methods section" thing. But the feedback on our discussion was specific. It said we were treating a correlation as mechanism, and pointed to the exact paragraph. I disagreed at first. Went back, reread it, and... yeah. Changed the framing, submitted to JEM, got major revision instead of reject. Can't prove it was the reason but I think it was.
James W.
Associate Professor, Immunology
School of Medicine (US)
I'm not a native English speaker and I'd already paid for language editing separately. This was completely different. It wasn't about grammar at all. The report basically said my introduction didn't match what Nature Communications actually publishes in my subfield. Very specific, not generic advice. I didn't even know that kind of feedback existed outside of having a well-connected mentor.
Wei C.
Assistant Professor, Systems Biology
National university (East Asia)
The figure feedback hurt a little, not going to lie. It said Figure 3 was unreadable without two paragraphs of context from the results. My supervisor approved those figures. I approved them. But we redesigned it before submitting to eLife and a reviewer in round two specifically said the figures were well-constructed. My PI takes credit for that now which is fine I guess.
Emma B.
PhD Candidate, Neuroscience
University medical center (Northern Europe)
The reviewers
Your reviewers have published in the journals you're targeting
Our network includes 35+ expert reviewers across multiple disciplines. Here are a few examples. We'll match you with someone whose expertise fits your manuscript.
500+
Papers published
35+
In Cell, Nature, Science
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
+16
More reviewers
across oncology, cardiology, infectious disease, and more
Your reviewers come from institutions including
Frequently asked questions
Pre-submission feedback is standard practice in academia. Every researcher circulates drafts to colleagues, presents at lab meetings, and seeks input before submission. We provide access to expert reviewers outside your immediate network. Your ideas and work remain entirely your own.
Colleagues are valuable but have limitations: they know your work too well, may not have time for detailed feedback, and may not have experience with your target journal. Our reviewers bring fresh perspective, structured methodology, and specific experience publishing in top-tier journals. They'll catch things your lab missed because they're seeing your work for the first time, just like journal reviewers will.
Most single-manuscript reviews range from $1,000–1,800 depending on manuscript length, field complexity, and turnaround requirements. We offer flexible packages to fit different needs. Contact us with your manuscript details for a precise quote.
Most reviews are completed within 3-7 days, depending on manuscript length and field complexity. We prioritize thoroughness over speed, but can accommodate urgent requests when needed. You'll receive regular updates on progress.
Most manuscripts are reviewed by one expert reviewer, though you can request up to three reviewers for more thorough feedback. We'll discuss your needs during our initial conversation.
During our initial conversation, we'll assess whether your manuscript is at the right stage. If we think it needs more development before formal review, we'll tell you honestly. We'd rather you succeed than waste your investment. We also offer lighter-touch consultations for earlier-stage work.
Our reviewers provide the same caliber of critique you'd receive from journal peer reviewers, but before submission, when you can still address weaknesses. Researchers report that our feedback helped them identify blind spots, strengthen methodology, and refine their narrative. The difference is catching those issues before they become rejection reasons.
Yes. If your manuscript goes through journal review and requires revisions, we offer follow-up support to help you respond to reviewer comments. Many authors find this even more valuable than the initial review. We help you understand exactly what the reviewers are asking for.
Yes. All reviewers operate under formal NDAs. No content is stored, logged, or shared for any purpose beyond your review. Only your assigned reviewer sees your work.
No. We accept projects based on scope, scientific readiness, and reviewer availability. If a project isn't a fit, we'll say so upfront. This ensures we can deliver the depth of feedback each manuscript deserves.
Yes. When you submit, you can specify the expertise areas most important for your manuscript. We'll do our best to match you with a reviewer whose background aligns with your needs.
Our reviews are meant to strengthen your work, not dictate changes. You retain full control over your manuscript. If you have questions about specific feedback, we can arrange clarification with reviewers or discuss alternative perspectives.
Yes, we work with researchers globally. Our reviewers are experienced with manuscripts from non-native English speakers and provide feedback on both scientific content and presentation clarity. We focus on helping you meet the conventions these journals expect: framing, structure, and how evidence is presented.
For expert review
Manusights gives researchers access to the same caliber of feedback journal editors rely on. Our network includes CNS-published scientists across immunology, genomics, neuroscience, and metabolism.
Let's talk about your manuscript
Tell us about your manuscript. We'll get back to you within 24 hours with a quote and next steps.
Most reviews: $1,000–1,800
Based on complexity and turnaround