Is your manuscript ready for your target journal?
What would an editor flag in your draft? Find out before you submit. Free, about 90 seconds.
“I really like this tool, perhaps a bit too much”
With ChatGPT there is often a confirmation bias, much less present in Manusights. Helped me substantially restructure after a peer-review rejection — now under review at AJAE.
Anaëlle Denieul-Babrot · Recent PhD, Economics · INRAE, FranceFree scan in about 1-2 minutes.
Free preview. Full report $39, only if you want it.
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.
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.
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
Common questions
A six-section .docx report delivered to your inbox. Each section is scored 1-5, with an overall recommendation and a prioritized A/B/C list of what to fix first. Every issue comes with a specific fix, a rationale, and verified citations from recent literature. You can see a real example by clicking the sample-report link above.
That's actually the best time. Most researchers use the report to decide on a target journal, close figure gaps, and tighten methods before they consider the paper final. Getting feedback while you can still act on it is the whole point.
Yes. Every Full Review runs vision-based parsing on every figure and image-embedded equation, and verifies every citation against CrossRef, PubMed, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, bioRxiv, and medRxiv (500M+ works). Fabricated DOIs, mismatched titles, and citations that don't support the claim get flagged.
60-day money-back guarantee, no questions asked. Email us within 60 days for a refund: no forms, no waiting. After 60 days, you can still request a refund through 12 months if the report did not flag at least 3 substantive issues in your manuscript.
Want the whole framework, not just the scan? Read The Presubmission Method: the eight jobs between draft-done and submit-clicked, in order, with the opinions our 35+ peer-reviewer network co-developed.