The AI assists, but the expert leads. We handle the manual scans for paper-mills, citation errors, and methodological gaps so you can provide the nuanced judgment that only a human expert can.
Our AI tools also flag grammatical, technical, and formatting issues, allowing your scientific expertise to shine through.
We enrolled n = 34 participants across three sites using a randomized cross-over design over 8 weeks...
Statistical model follows pre-registered protocol on OSF.
Approved by IRB protocol [unstated].
Citation [Wong 2019] retracted; not flagged in submission.
The expectations from reviewers are increasing but the support hasn't kept pace.
Spotting this manually is exhausting work.
Hallucinated references, retracted papers, citation cartels are not easy to detect.
It is getting more and more difficult to spot subtle breaches of ethical practices.
Scans for text similarity across open-access literature. Surfaces patterns worth a closer look before you begin your full read.
Checks for gaps in study design, weaknesses in the abstract, and compliance with ethical standards.
Cross-checks manuscript keywords against the journal's stated scope — an early signal before you go deep.
Surfaces similar published work — so you can judge the contribution with the full picture in front of you.
Flags whether required ethics-board approvals are reported. Covers human subjects, animal research, and clinical trials.
Identifies incomplete entries, unverified sources, retracted papers, and hallucinated references. Every citation, accounted for.
Each manuscript section has a corresponding checklist, so you can cover every aspect.
Join the reviewers using ReviewerOne to catch what manual scans miss — and reserve their full attention for the judgment only an expert can make.