A reviewer-style report before your paper leaves the lab.

Upload a manuscript, choose a journal, and see the risks reviewers will notice first.

Continue with email

PaperProof Mock ReviewNature Neuroscience

Submission readiness

Major revision first

Substantial issues across multiple dimensions.

Reference authenticity

28 of 29 matched1 needs review

Main reviewer concerns

Study design & methods

Limited control of confounders; important details are missing.

High

Data & evidence

Some conclusions extend beyond the presented analysis.

Medium

Framing & interpretation

Causal language is not fully supported by the evidence.

Medium

View all concerns

Next step: address high-impact concerns before submission.View report

Journal-calibrated

Tailored to the scope and standards of your target journal.

Evidence anchored

Every concern links back to sections, data, or citations.

Exportable report

A clear, collaborator-ready report for your team or advisor.

Three steps from draft to a reviewer’s-eye report.

Upload your manuscript

Submit a DOCX, LaTeX (.tex), or PDF manuscript for section and reference extraction.

Choose the target journal

Calibrate the review against Nature, The Lancet, PLOS ONE, or a general profile.

Read the mock review

Review a readiness status, ranked reviewer-style concerns, and reference lookup results.

What a PaperProof review covers.

Not wording and tone. The dimensions commonly considered during editorial screening and peer review.

Read like a reviewer, not a linter.

Each dimension maps to a question that may arise during editorial screening or peer review.

Editorial fit

Whether an editor would send this out for review, against the scope and threshold of your target journal.

Novelty risk signals

How reviewers may challenge your novelty framing, so you can fortify the argument before they raise it.

Methodological soundness

Design, statistics, and analysis choices a reviewer would probe in the methods.

Evidence strength

Whether the data on the page can actually carry the claims you make.

Reference lookup

Whether listed references can be matched in connected scholarly databases, with possible metadata mismatches flagged.

A grammar tool polishes sentences. PaperProof surfaces submission-readiness risks.

The difference between sounding ready and being ready is the difference between a clean sentence and a defensible claim.

Polishes wording

Simulates editor screening

Fixes grammar

Identifies reviewer-style risks

Improves tone

Prioritizes major revision needs

Surface-level edits

Guides submission readiness

Built for researchers who can’t afford a wasted submission cycle.

PhD students

Reviewer-style feedback before your first major submission.

Postdocs

Pressure-test a manuscript before it reaches your PI or the editor.

Clinician researchers

Check reporting and design framing against journal expectations.

Early-career PIs

Triage lab manuscripts: what to fix first before submission.

A plan for each submission stage.

Start with an overview, unlock one manuscript, or review every month.

Compare all plans

Free

one review / month

1 review each month

Single Review

per manuscript

1 manuscript review

Pro

per month, billed yearly

3 reviews each month

Trusted by scholars from leading universities

Researchers across top U.S. institutions use PaperProof to pressure-test manuscripts before submission.

Princeton University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Harvard University

Stanford University

Yale University

University of Pennsylvania

California Institute of Technology

Duke University

Brown University

Johns Hopkins University

Northwestern University

Columbia University

Cornell University

University of Chicago

University of California, Berkeley

University of California, Los Angeles

Rice University

Dartmouth College

Vanderbilt University

University of Notre Dame

University of Michigan

Georgetown University

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Carnegie Mellon University

Emory University

Princeton University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Harvard University

Stanford University

Yale University

University of Pennsylvania

California Institute of Technology

Duke University

Brown University

Johns Hopkins University

Northwestern University

Columbia University

Cornell University

University of Chicago

University of California, Berkeley

University of California, Los Angeles

Rice University

Dartmouth College

Vanderbilt University

University of Notre Dame

University of Michigan

Georgetown University

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Carnegie Mellon University

Emory University

University of Virginia

Washington University in St. Louis

University of California, San Diego

University of Florida

University of Southern California

University of Texas at Austin

Georgia Institute of Technology

New York University

University of California, Davis

University of California, Irvine

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Boston College

Tufts University

University of California, Santa Barbara

University of Washington

Boston University

The Ohio State University

Rutgers University–New Brunswick

University of Maryland, College Park

University of Rochester

Lehigh University

Purdue University

University of Georgia

University of Minnesota Twin Cities

University of Virginia

Washington University in St. Louis

University of California, San Diego

University of Florida

University of Southern California

University of Texas at Austin

Georgia Institute of Technology

New York University

University of California, Davis

University of California, Irvine

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Boston College

Tufts University

University of California, Santa Barbara

University of Washington

Boston University

The Ohio State University

Rutgers University–New Brunswick

University of Maryland, College Park

University of Rochester

Lehigh University

Purdue University

University of Georgia

University of Minnesota Twin Cities

Common questions.

Is PaperProof a grammar checker?+

No. PaperProof simulates editor screening and reviewer-style feedback. It prioritizes submission risks, not sentence polish.

Does PaperProof guarantee acceptance?+

No. PaperProof produces an AI-generated readiness assessment. It does not predict or guarantee any editorial decision.

Does PaperProof edit my manuscript?+

Reports are read-only. The editor can suggest revisions, but a change is applied only when you accept it.

What file types are supported?+

DOCX, LaTeX (.tex), and PDF manuscripts. DOCX or LaTeX is recommended for the most reliable parsing; PDF is accepted but parsed with lower fidelity (no layout, no .bib). A companion .bib is accepted only with LaTeX.

How does manuscript processing work?+

Supported manuscript files are parsed into structured sections and reference entries before the review is generated. PDF uploads use text extraction rather than original page layout.

Does PaperProof check references?+

It checks whether each reference can be found in scholarly databases. It does not judge whether a citation supports a claim.

Find the weak points before a reviewer does.

Surface the concerns an editor or reviewer is likely to raise—while you still have time to fix them.

Start a review