Nobody teaches you how to get published.
You learned to do research. Then you were handed a blank document and expected to know the rest: which journal, what editors screen for, why papers come back in four days without a reviewer ever reading them.
The Academy is that missing part, worked out on your own paper, one task at a time.
60-day money-back guarantee, no questions.
Built on the standard of a network of 35+ active reviewers, including current Nature, Cell, and Science reviewers.
We ran our review engine across 12,402 papers and 744,770 citations, and published what we found. Read the study.
Researchers who have used Manusights and agreed to be named come from these institutions.
- Columbia Business School
- Providence College
- University of Hong Kong
- INRAE, France
- University of Louisville
- Tsao-tun Psychiatric Center, Taiwan
The real problem
The feedback you get depends on who you know
The science that gets published is not always the best science. It is the best-packaged science. And that packaging, knowing what editors actually screen for, is locked behind informal networks.
In a well-connected lab
- A senior colleague tears your draft apart before you submit.
- Your PI knows which journal wants what, and tells you.
- Lab meeting catches the weak figure and the overclaimed discussion.
- The paper goes out polished, and gets accepted faster.
On your own
- You submit your best guess and hope.
- You wait three months for a vague rejection letter.
- You resubmit elsewhere, and wait another three months.
- A year gone. Same paper. Fixable problems nobody mentioned.
And no, pasting it into ChatGPT does not close the gap. It is confident, agreeable, and has never seen a desk rejection. It tells you the paper is strong. Reviewer 2 disagrees. Your paper’s fate should not depend on whether you happen to know someone who reviewed for Nature last month.
Why we built this
My father is a scientist. A good one.
I watched him struggle to get published for years. It was not the science. It was everything around it: framing that did not land, a discussion that buried the finding, statistics that gave reviewers easy targets. Submit, wait three months, get a vague rejection, start over.
I studied computer science, went into consulting and then private equity, and spent years evaluating companies built on scientific research. From the outside, the pattern was obvious, and it was everywhere I looked in the Harvard and MIT ecosystem: the researchers who got the honest, expert feedback got it informally, over coffee, from someone who had reviewed for a top journal. Everyone else was on their own.
When I started sharing what I saw, researchers began asking me to coach them one-on-one on their own papers. I could only ever help a handful that way, and real one-on-one coaching costs more than most researchers can spend. So I built this instead: the same coaching, turned into a system you work through on your own manuscript, one task at a time.
The Academy exists to close that gap: to give every researcher the coaching a well-connected lab gets for free, on their own manuscript, one task at a time.
Erik Jia
Founder, Manusights
The loop
How it actually works
There are no modules to sit through. Everything happens on the paper you are actually trying to publish.
Bring your paper
A draft, or an idea and your data. Tell us your field and the journal you are aiming at.
Get your plan
You get the full path to submission-ready, worked in order. If your draft is finished, run a review first and the plan starts from what it found.
One task a day
Short teaching, then you do it on your own text, then you get feedback on what you wrote. Not a video you watch.
Graduate
A task is finished when the check clears, not when a timer ends. When your paper crosses the line, you submit.
The difference
Agreeable is not the same as right
In 2025, 21% of peer reviews at one major conference were fully AI-generated, and a hundred hallucinated citations passed review at another. The market answered with cheap tools that produce plausible-sounding feedback and verify nothing.
Manusights is built the other way round: verify first, then analyze.
The engine checks your citations against real bibliographic sources before it says a word, and its review is calibrated around the objections that actually decide submissions: underpowered evidence, missing controls, overclaimed causality, weak journal fit, unclear novelty. The goal is not to sound like a reviewer. It is to find the issues a reviewer or editor will use against your paper, while you can still fix them.
The receipts
This is not a course
someone made up.
Manusights is a working pre-submission review company. We validated the engine against real peer review and published the results: 12,402 papers and 744,770 citations checked. The Academy teaches from that same engine, on the same corpus of real editorial findings.
- 240+
- researchers have paid for a review
- 300+
- manuscripts reviewed before submission
- 35+
- active peer reviewers trained the engine
Researchers who have used it, and said so publicly, work at:
- Columbia Business School
- Providence College
- University of Hong Kong
- INRAE, France
- University of Louisville
- Tsao-tun Psychiatric Center, Taiwan
Every name behind this list gave explicit permission to be quoted.
In their words
From researchers who used the review behind it
These researchers used our pre-submission review, the same engine and standard the Academy teaches you to work with. The Academy itself is new, so there are no course testimonials yet, and we would rather say that than borrow theirs. Named quotes are shared with permission. A few asked to stay anonymous; their role and institution are kept accurate.
Honestly, I really like this tool, perhaps a bit too much. Manusights has been extremely helpful in identifying realistic target journals. From my experience, it's actually the only AI assistant that gives feedback on the full manuscript rather than only the abstract. With ChatGPT there is often a kind of confirmation bias, which is much less present in Manusights. It helped me substantially restructure my paper after a peer-review rejection. It's now under review at AJAE.
Anaëlle Denieul-Babrot
Recent PhD, Economics · INRAE, France
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.
Sarah L.
Postdoctoral Fellow · Biostatistics group, R1 university (US)
It said Figure 3 was unreadable without two paragraphs of context from the results. We redesigned it before submitting to eLife, and a reviewer in round two specifically said the figures were well-constructed.
Emma B.
PhD Candidate · University medical center (Northern Europe)
The feedback I got from Manusights was both candid and correct about the strengths and limitations of my manuscript. I've seen some of this feedback before, the hard way. Seeing it earlier would have been useful.
Bo Cowgill
Assistant Professor · Columbia Business School
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 exact changes needed. It caught papers I'd missed, all verified, saving another round of searching. Every round builds on the last, and just knowing where to submit saved me months.
Lora Chen
Researcher · University of Hong Kong
The Manusights evaluation of my draft was like having your own peer reviewer on demand. The positives were appreciated, and the negatives were spot on, giving me a 'why did I not think of that' kind of moment. The recommendations are actionable and helpful.
G.T.B.
Practising clinician, Singapore · BMJ Case Reports submission
What you get
$69, once. Yours to keep
One desk rejection costs you three to six months. One professional edit costs $300 to $1,000. An hour of academic coaching runs $120 and up. The Academy is a one-time $69, and it is yours to keep. Prices are adjusted by country, so researchers outside high-income regions pay less.
The free review covers more than half the price
Reach the halfway mark and you earn a free Full Review credit, a $39 value, most of what you paid, before you even finish. No subscription, nothing to cancel. You keep the method and everything you build, and come back to it for your next paper. If it is not for you, a 60-day money-back guarantee, no questions.
The Submission-Ready System, every module
The complete method, from naming your contribution to reading the decision letter and writing the response, in ten modules worked in order on the paper you are actually trying to publish.
A free Full Review, unlocked halfway, $39 value
Reach the halfway mark of the system and a full pre-submission review credit lands in your account. It never expires, so you can use it whenever your paper is ready, this year or next.
Coached on your own work, never a lecture
Every lesson is short teaching, then you do it on your own text, then you get real feedback on what you wrote. It teaches you to do the work; it does not do it for you.
The keep-forever toolkit
Cover-letter and response-to-reviewer skeletons, a journal-fit scorecard, a desk-screen checklist, and a self-review rubric. Yours for this paper and the next.
Everything you build, yours to keep
One payment. Keep the compiled plan you built on your own manuscript, and the tools you used to build it. Come back to all of it for your next paper.
The community, free
A room of other researchers going through the same thing. Ask questions, share a draft, and see what others are working through.
Join if
- You have a paper, or the data and an idea, and you want it published.
- You want to learn how the publishing game actually works, not outsource it.
- You do not have a lab or a mentor that hands you this feedback over coffee, at whatever stage your work is.
Not for you if
- You want someone to write the paper for you. It teaches you to do it; it does not do it for you.
- You want us to pick the journal and write the cover letter for you. The Academy teaches you to make those calls yourself.
- Your paper is already accepted. There is nothing here for you, and we would rather say so.
Not sure yet? Start the free 5-day course first, or run the free scan on your paper. Both cost nothing, and you keep the result.
Straight answers
The questions you are actually asking
- Why not just use ChatGPT? It is free.
- Because agreeable is not the same as right. A general model tells you your paper is strong; it has never seen a desk rejection and it will not check its own citations. The Academy is calibrated around the objections that actually sink submissions, and it verifies your references against real bibliographic sources. The goal is not to sound like a reviewer. It is to find what a reviewer will use against you, while you can still fix it.
- Is a real human reviewing my manuscript?
- No, and we will not pretend otherwise. The Academy is automated end to end. What is human is the standard behind it: the engine was trained by a network of 35+ active reviewers, including current top-tier-journal reviewers, on how they actually judge manuscripts. Named human review is a separate premium engagement.
- What if I do not have a draft yet?
- You still start, and this is exactly who the Academy meets. You get the foundations that get work published, practiced on your own project at whatever stage it is, no finished paper required. When you have a draft, the engine turns it into a full plan.
- Is it really one payment?
- Yes. One payment of $69, and the Academy is yours to keep. No subscription, no renewal, nothing to cancel. And halfway through, you earn a free Full Review credit, a $39 value that never expires, so more than half of what you paid comes right back. If it is not for you, a 60-day money-back guarantee, no questions.
My dad eventually got his papers published. It just took longer than it should have. The Academy exists so the next researcher does not have to figure it out alone.
Erik Jia
Founder, Manusights
Give your paper a real shot
$69, one time. Yours to keep, 60-day money-back guarantee.
Not ready to buy? Join the free community and start with the researchers already in it. Members just get more.