Find out what Reviewer 2 will say — before you submit.
A researcher who publishes in your exact subfield reads your manuscript
and tells you where it will be attacked. Not a language edit. Not a journal.
A critique.
The journal will find you a referee eventually. We are the one who reads it first.
Why a language edit doesn't help
Most manuscripts are not rejected for English. They are rejected because the
exposure assessment cannot support the claim, because a confounder was
adjusted away that should not have been, because the dose–response was assumed
monotonic in a field still arguing about that — or because the paper failed
to cite work the reviewer helped produce.
Those are not language problems, and a professional editor cannot see them.
Only somebody publishing in the same subfield this year can.
What you receive
One structured report, roughly 1,200 words, in six parts:
The one-line verdictWhat most likely happens if you submit as-is: desk reject, major revision, or minor.
Fatal problemsWhat will get you rejected outright, ranked, each with a route to fix it.
The three things a reviewer will attackNot fatal, but they will cost you a revision round. Each with a specific response.
Who you failed to citeWork from the last three years you should have engaged with — and whose absence a reviewer is likely to notice, because they may have written it.
Where to send itBased on the manuscript's actual strength, not your hopes for it.
A statement of limitsPrinted on every report. See below.
Part 4 is the one authors tell us they did not expect. It is also the part no
language service and no AI tool can produce.
What we do not do
We do not write, rewrite, or edit your text. The reviewer cannot upload a revised manuscript. The deliverable is criticism, never prose.
We do not promise acceptance. No success rate, no hit rate, no "should be fine." Anyone quoting you a number is selling something else.
We do not submit on your behalf, contact editors, or have any relationship with any journal.
We are not peer review. This report carries no weight with any journal and must not be presented as if it does.
We do not touch your data or your figures.
Who reads your manuscript
Every reviewer must meet all four conditions:
Corresponding author on 3+ papers in your subfield since 2024. Currently active, not trading on an old reputation.
Named to you. You see who reviewed your manuscript, with their institution and ORCID. Anonymous critique is worth less and we do not offer it.
Cleared for conflicts. Not a competitor, not a collaborator, not a co-author — and not somebody who might later be asked to review your manuscript for the journal.
Bound by a confidentiality agreement that also forbids using your manuscript to train any model.
Founding advisory board — three senior researchers in this
subfield set the review standard and audit report quality.
Names and affiliations listed here once appointments are confirmed.
Your unpublished manuscript
The reasonable fear is not leakage. It is being scooped. So: reviewers are
named and identity-verified through ORCID, screened out if they work on a
competing question, bound by a signed agreement, and every file access is
logged and available to you.
Your manuscript is never used to train a model, by us or by anyone we work with.
What it costs
We do not set the price. Reviewers publish their own rate for a
manuscript, and you decide which one is worth it — or you name your own budget
and see who takes it. We show you what the going rate has been in your subfield
so you are not guessing.
Route one
Choose a reviewer
See who qualifies for your manuscript — their rate, institution, h-index, recent papers — and pick one. They can decline.
Route two
Post your manuscript
Name a budget, or name none. Qualified reviewers see your abstract and target journal, and respond with a price. You choose.
On route two, reviewers respond with a price — never with work. Nobody writes
anything until you have chosen them, and nobody sees your full manuscript
until then either. There is no contest in which several people critique your
paper for free and one gets paid.
What we charge on top
Item
Amount
Set by
The review itself
Reviewer's rate
The reviewer, or your posting
Our fee
30%
Fixed, published, never negotiated
Refund-if-desk-rejected option
×1.7
Us — it is our risk, not the reviewer's
The refund-if-desk-rejected option
You can pay a higher price on one condition: if the editor rejects your
manuscript without sending it to reviewers, you get all of it back.
That is us backing our own judgment — not a prediction about your paper, and
not a promise about acceptance. Available only on manuscripts that clear our
initial screen, and the multiplier moves with the desk-rejection rate we
actually observe.
The reviewer is paid in full on delivery under either option, and is never told
which one you chose. Their job is to find what is wrong with your paper; we are
not going to give them a reason to go easy on it.
How it runs
Send the manuscript and name your target journal.
Choose a reviewer, or post and let them come to you. You see exactly who they are before they see your full text.
The report arrives within 7 days.
Revise, then send it back once for a short second read, included.
Use one — for structure, clarity, and formatting, they are good and far cheaper than us. They cannot tell you which claim is contested in your subfield this year, or which group will be annoyed that you ignored their 2024 paper. That knowledge exists in people who are in the room, not in a training corpus.
Is this ethical? Does it need to be disclosed?
Asking a colleague to read your draft before you submit is ordinary, expected practice. This is that, with a colleague you would not otherwise have access to. We produce no text that enters your manuscript, so there is nothing to declare as authorship. If your journal requires disclosure of pre-submission assistance, disclose it — we will provide a description you can use verbatim.
What if the report says my paper is not good enough?
Then it says so, and it tells you what would have to change. That is the product. A report that tells you what you want to hear is worth nothing, and we would rather lose the repeat business than write one.
Why don't you just publish one price?
Because we would be pricing other people's expertise. A reviewer with fifteen years in your subfield and one with three should not be worth the same, and we are not the right party to decide the difference — you are. What we will tell you is what manuscripts like yours have actually cost recently, so the number you enter is an informed one.
Which fields do you cover?
One at a time, properly. We are currently accepting manuscripts in endocrine disruption and environmental health only. If we cannot match a genuine subfield expert to your manuscript, we decline it and you pay nothing.