Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Score, top submission risks, and journal-fit signal. No account needed.
Anthropic Privacy Partner
Zero-retention manuscript processing. Your manuscript is not used for training.
Upload on this page. Free preview first.
Start free scan
Upload your manuscript
Email, target journal, and file.
×ManusightsTrusted processing
Anthropic Privacy Partner
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing. Your manuscript is not used for training.
Learn about our Anthropic partnershipIn the free preview
Readiness score
See whether the draft looks submission-ready or still has obvious weaknesses.
Desk-reject risk
Get an early signal on whether the paper is likely to fail editorial triage.
Quoted issues and fixes
See the top problems with direct quotes and a concrete fix direction.
Real output example
Nature Communications sample diagnostic
A real report format with score, journal-fit verdict, and ranked fix priorities.
Journal fit
Borderline for Nature Comms
Top issue
Translational framing is too weak
What you get
Prioritized fix list with citations
How scoring works
Manusights Readiness Score v1.0
Five dimensions roll into one submission-readiness signal so you can decide what to fix first, not just whether the draft feels promising.
Citation Integrity
25% weight
Methodological Robustness
25% weight
Reviewer Risk
20% weight
Journal Fit Readiness
15% weight
Novelty & Positioning
15% weight
85-100
Strong
70-84
Promising
55-69
Needs Work
0-54
High Risk
Why this is not generic AI feedback
Three things the report does that a generic chatbot does not
High-intent users do not need a lecture. They need to know where the signal comes from, why it is credible, and what the paid report actually unlocks.
It searches live literature instead of relying on a frozen training cutoff.
Each run pulls recent papers across five academic databases, routes the search by field, and ranks what is actually relevant to your manuscript.
Every citation is verified before it reaches the report.
The system checks citations against CrossRef, PubMed, and arXiv. If a paper cannot be confirmed, it does not get cited.
It reads the whole manuscript and calibrates to a target journal.
Figures, tables, methods, and journal expectations stay in scope. The report is not just a generic writing critique.
Built with reviewer logic, not just polished prose
The rubric was shaped with active reviewers for Cell, Nature, and Science family journals, using the actual failure patterns they flag in review.
Novelty gap analysis
Where the manuscript still looks incremental
Figure-level scrutiny
What breaks confidence in the data panels
Mechanistic sufficiency
Where claims outrun evidence
Journal framing
How the target venue changes the bar
Sample report
See the actual output format before you pay
The sample shows the score layout, journal-fit verdict, and the fix prioritization structure without making you scroll through a full mock report here.
Free. Sent instantly by email.
Real output from delivered reports
Specific. Cited. Actionable.
Here is the level of specificity users actually get back: direct problem statements, why they matter, and what to fix next.
Primary efficacy endpoint analyzed without a pre-specified analysis plan. Section 3.2 describes post-hoc subgroup comparisons that were not pre-registered.
Register primary and secondary endpoints before submission. Nature Medicine requires this for clinical studies. Post-hoc subgroup analysis without registration is a common desk rejection trigger.
Mechanistic depth is solid but the translational framing is underdeveloped for a Nature Medicine audience. The clinical implication is a single paragraph in Section 5.
Expand to 3-4 sentences covering patient population, therapeutic window, and the nearest analogous approved drug class. This is standard at journals with IF above 40.
What the paid report adds
- 15+ verified citations tied to the manuscript
- Journal-fit verdict with ranked alternatives
- Prioritized A/B/C fix list for the next draft
Start with the Free Readiness Scan. Unlock the Full AI Diagnostic for $29. If you need deeper scientific feedback, choose Expert Review.
Three steps
How it works
Upload your manuscript
Drop your PDF or Word doc. Pick your target journal. Takes about 60 seconds.
See your readiness score
Score, section-by-section breakdown, top issues with direct quotes from your paper, journal fit, and desk rejection risk. Results in about 60 seconds.
Unlock the full report
Get the complete analysis with verified citations from 500M+ papers, figure-level feedback, and a prioritized fix list. Delivered as a .docx in 30 minutes.
What the full report includes
What this would cost to replicate manually
A senior postdoc typically spends 3-4 hours on literature scan and citation checks before journal fit analysis even starts.
Colleague review is often delayed and unpredictable, which can miss submission windows.
Literature scan, citation check, figure review, and journal calibration in one report.
Free scan in ~60 seconds. Full report in ~30 minutes. Full refund if not satisfied.
What researchers say
The report caught things they would have missed
It caught that we were missing in vivo validation for our main claim. Obvious in hindsight but three of us missed it. Had two weeks before the Nature Medicine submission window closed so we actually had time to fix it. Worth way more than $29.
Anqing C.
Postdoc, Immunology
Medical school (US)
Submitted to Nature Medicine
Flagged a confounding variable in our causal inference framing that I genuinely thought was fine. Ran the additional analysis before submitting to Nat Comms. Reviewers raised the same issue, saw it was already addressed, minor revisions. I got lucky that I checked.
Miguel T.
PI, Computational Biology
Research institute (EU)
Submitted to Nature Communications
Found three papers from the last year that I completely missed, all directly relevant to our novelty claim, and I would've submitted without citing any of them. Added a paragraph addressing the overlap and the reviewer who flagged those same papers said we'd handled it well. Could've easily been a reject.
Sojung K.
PhD student, Neuroscience
University (Canada)
Submitted to Sci. Transl. Med.
Start here or go deeper
Two ways to know before you submit
Full AI Diagnostic
Typical report delivery in ~30 minutes
30-minute delivery. No account. No subscription. One-time.
If it doesn't find something you didn't know, you don't pay
Email us for an immediate refund. No forms, no questions.
Expert Review
3-7 business days
Intended use and limitations
- • This diagnostic is a quality-control layer before submission, not a substitute for journal peer review.
- • It prioritizes actionable manuscript weaknesses and citation integrity, not final publication decisions.
- • Deep, niche mechanistic debates may require expert human review in your exact subfield.
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 "Get the sample report" above.
Free Readiness Scan in about 60 seconds. Full AI Diagnostic delivery is typically around 30 minutes. Runs 24/7, including weekends and holidays.
Yes. Your PDF is encrypted in transit and permanently deleted after analysis. It's never stored, never shared, and never used to train any model.
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.
Biomedical and life sciences broadly: oncology, immunology, neuroscience, cardiology, metabolism, infectious disease, cell biology, and more. We cover 40+ journals across tiers, from Nature and Cell down to field-specific journals. If your target isn't on the list, email team@manusights.com and we'll confirm before you pay.
Three things. It searches 500M+ live papers (ChatGPT's knowledge has a cutoff). Every citation is verified against CrossRef and PubMed (ChatGPT invents them). And the scoring rubric was built with CNS peer reviewers using their actual review documents, not just published papers.
Different product. The expert review pairs you with a scientist who actively reviews for journals in your field. They write 12-18 specific recommendations with a cover letter strategy. Most researchers run the AI diagnostic first to catch fixable issues, then decide if they need deeper feedback for a top-tier submission.
Yes. Each submission is priced separately. Some researchers run it, revise, then run it again to confirm the issues were addressed before final submission.
If it doesn't flag at least one issue you weren't already aware of, email us for an immediate refund. No forms, no waiting.
Find out before reviewers do
Your reviewers will find these issues. The question is whether you find them first.
Report in ~30 minutes. Full refund if not satisfied.
Upload PDF. Choose journal. Pay. Report in ~30 min.
No account needed. One-time. No subscription. Ever.