Is your manuscript ready for your target journal?
What would an editor flag in your draft? Find out before you submit. Free, 1-2 minutes.
“It helped me restructure my paper after a rejection. It's now under review at AJAE.”
The only AI tool that reviews the whole manuscript, not just the abstract — and with far less of ChatGPT's confirmation bias.
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.
Earn free reviews
Invite a colleague and you both get a free Full Review when they run their first. Or earn credits by posting about Manusights, or acknowledging us in a published paper.
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 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.
“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 a tutor.”
It foresees what 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
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.
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, and this is the part a one-off AI chat can't do. When you re-upload a revised version, the engine reviews it in light of your prior round and tells you what you addressed, what still shows up, and what's new. Most manuscripts go through two or three rounds; the 3-pack and 5-pack (24-30% off) are built for exactly that.
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.