PeerGenius
Validated against BMJ peer reviews

Seven reviewers.
One decision letter.
Before you submit.

Upload a manuscript and a panel of specialists reads it in parallel, each looking for something different. You get one prioritized letter, with every issue paired to a concrete fix.

No subscription · Your price appears before you pay · Files deleted after 30 days

01

Upload

The manuscript, plus tables and figures as separate files. Nothing is charged yet.

02

The panel reads in parallel

Up to 7 specialists work at once. You watch each finish and open its report as it lands.

03

Decision letter

Major against minor revisions, prioritized, each issue paired with a concrete fix.

Reviewer 1 of 8

Statistical Methods

Test selection, assumption violations, power, and interpretation. Returns corrective code in R, Python, or Stata.

Your paired t-test assumes normality. Consider Wilcoxon signed-rank given n=12, with corrective R code.
  • Statistical MethodsReading
  • Domain ExpertQueued
  • Results AccuracyQueued
  • Adversarial SkepticQueued
  • Systematic ReviewerQueued
  • Pragmatic ReviewerQueued
  • Scientific & Technical WriterQueued
  • Editor-in-ChiefQueued

What comes back

Not a score and a shrug. Every issue names the location, quotes the passage, and says what to do about it.

Statistical Methods

Your paired t-test assumes normality. Consider Wilcoxon signed-rank given your sample size of n=12, with corrective R code.

Results Accuracy

Table 3 reports n=245 but the sum of subgroup ns is 243. This discrepancy should be resolved before submission.

Domain Expert

Three recent RCTs directly contradict your stated hypothesis. These should be addressed in your Discussion.

Measured against real peer reviews

8.86
Average score out of 10
4 of 5
Reached near-parity
64.2%
Complementarity

This is a preliminary analysis of 5 manuscripts published in The BMJ, not a controlled trial. The complementarity figure cuts both ways: the panel and the journal reviewers each raised substantial issues the other missed. Read the full comparison.

Ray W. Shiraishi, Ph.D.
Why this exists

Most papers are not rejected because the research is weak. They are rejected because a methodological, statistical, or analytical problem was not caught early enough.

I am a mathematical statistician and frequent journal reviewer with 70+ publications. PeerGenius puts the work I do as a reviewer in front of you before an editor sees it. More about the project.

One review. One price.

No subscription · Priced by manuscript length

Recommended

Premier Review

Example · a 3,500-word article
$8.14your exact price is calculated from your own manuscript, before you pay
  • ·All seven specialist reviewers
  • ·Editor-in-Chief consolidation
  • ·Comprehensive decision letter, major vs. minor
  • ·PDF export included
Get free assessment

Or pick individual reviewers, each priced by depth and length

Find out what a reviewer would say.

Upload a manuscript and read the assessment before deciding anything.

Get free assessment