Skip to main content

Trust Center

Manuscript privacy and institutional review in one place.

Manusights handles unpublished manuscripts as confidential research assets. This page collects the operating boundaries, vendor review materials, and policy links researchers and institutions usually need before using a manuscript-review service.

Manuscript content is not used for training

Uploaded manuscripts are processed to produce the requested review output. Manuscript content is not sold, shared for advertising, or used to train Manusights models.

Access is purpose-limited

Automated review workflows use service access for ingestion, processing, report delivery, support, and reliability.

Source files expire; paid reports remain available

Source files are scheduled for deletion seven days after the review lifecycle settles, except that unpaid previews keep their source files for the same 30-day window as their preview artifacts so a Full Review can still be started. Free preview artifacts are scheduled for deletion after 30 days. Completed Full Reviews and Dossiers remain available in the customer account without an automatic expiry, unless deletion is requested.

Institutions can request due-diligence materials

Labs, departments, and libraries can request data handling details, vendor review answers, billing documentation, and a DPA discussion before a paid pilot.

Review standard

Credibility comes from reviewer-calibrated language, not a hidden human review claim.

Manusights is differentiated from generic LLM feedback because the product is organized around reviewer objections and submission risk. Every paid product is automated, and the site says so, so authors know exactly what they are buying.

35+ reviewer calibration

The automated review standard was shaped by early work with 35+ CNS-experienced reviewers and senior scientists. Their language informed how Manusights describes unsupported claims, weak controls, novelty gaps, journal-fit risk, and likely reviewer objections.

Automated path boundary

Full Reviews and Dossiers do not use a live human reader. Manusights generates the report through the product workflow, and Manusights does not currently offer a human review of the manuscript.

Honest outcome limits

Reviewer-calibrated diagnostics can identify submission risk before you submit, but they do not replace journal peer review, guarantee acceptance, or predict every reviewer reaction.

Subprocessors

Core vendors used to operate Manusights.

This list is intentionally practical. It explains the systems that may receive account, operational, billing, email, hosting, or review-task data while Manusights provides the service.

PostHog
Product usage analytics and service reliability
Account email for signed-in connector activity, pseudonymous identifiers where available, and operational usage metadata
Anthropic
AI manuscript analysis and review generation
Manuscript text and task context required for the review
OpenAI
Structured-output fallback and selected review tasks
Task context required for the review when that path is used
Supabase
Authentication, durable job state, billing metadata, and app records
Account, job, attribution, and operational metadata
Google Cloud
Core review API and worker compute in us-east1
Manuscript text, review-task context, and operational logs during processing
Stripe
Payment processing, receipts, refunds, and billing records
Payment and customer billing data
Resend
Transactional and lifecycle email delivery
Email address, delivery metadata, and message content
Vercel
Website and application hosting
Standard hosting, request, and deployment logs

Important boundaries

What Manusights does not claim.

  • Manusights is not SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certified.
  • Manusights is not a HIPAA service, does not offer a BAA, and must not receive PHI or limited data sets.
  • Manusights does not replace journal peer review.
  • Manusights does not guarantee acceptance, reviewer sentiment, or editorial outcome.
  • Manusights does not make confidentiality risk zero. The goal is clear boundaries, limited access, and practical controls.
  • The reviewer-calibration evidence is internal and has not been independently validated as representative of every journal's reviewer population.