Silence Reviewer 2 before you submit
Identify structural gaps, inconsistencies, and reporting weaknesses in your research manuscript before submission.
Primary Risks
Section-by-Section Feedback
Why good research gets rejected
Based on editorial rejection data from a systematic review (PMC9022928)
Inadequate methodology
RigorCheck flags gaps in method reporting, checks design-analysis alignment, and applies discipline-specific standards (CONSORT, STROBE, APA).
Poor writing quality
RigorCheck identifies structural incoherence, argument gaps, and places where your reasoning doesn't follow — the issues copyediting can't catch.
Incomplete discussion
RigorCheck checks whether your Discussion addresses all findings, engages limitations honestly, and connects back to your stated research questions.
Weak study rationale
RigorCheck evaluates whether your Introduction builds a clear case for why this study matters and whether your framing holds up against your own results.
Feedback that thinks like a reviewer
Not another grammar checker. RigorCheck is a structural analysis tool that reads your manuscript the way peer reviewers do.
Argument Clarity
Reads your manuscript looking for theoretical coherence and the internal logic that holds a paper together—or unravels it.
Consistency Check
Confirms whether your claims match your evidence, whether your sections tell the same story, and whether gaps in logic will get flagged.
Fast Results
Get structured, prioritized feedback in minutes that helps you see what reviewers will see—before they see it.
The problem isn't that you don't know how to write.
It's that you're too close to see it clearly.
After months or years of working your research, it's hard to tell what's obvious only to you. You know what you mean to say, so you can't see where you haven't actually said it clearly.
And then the reviews come back:
"The authors claim X in the Abstract but their Results show Y."
"The theoretical framework introduced in the Literature Review is never applied in the Analysis."
"Major methodological details are missing."
"The Discussion does not address the study's most significant limitation."
These aren't obscure criticisms. They're the structural issues you might have caught yourself, if you could step outside your own expertise long enough to read like a stranger.
The criticism
"The authors claim significant findings in the Abstract, but their Results show non-significant trends."
RigorCheck catches it first
💡 Align the Abstract's claim with the statistical outcome reported in Results.
How RigorCheck works
Built around documented peer review failure patterns and discipline-specific reporting standards.
You set the context
Paste your manuscript and select your discipline. RigorCheck applies the reporting standards reviewers in your field expect — APA guidelines for psychology, CONSORT for clinical trials, STROBE for observational studies — along with the methodological concerns common in that area.
Structured analysis, not summarization
Your manuscript is analyzed section by section and evaluated for the things reviewers actually flag: cross-section consistency, argument coherence, methodological completeness, and claims alignment with evidence.
Every issue comes with a reason
Feedback follows a three-part structure: what was found, why a reviewer would flag it, and a concrete suggestion for addressing it. Issues are ranked by revision priority so you know where to start.
Field-specific, not generic
Each discipline has its own review criteria — APA reporting for psychology, CONSORT for clinical trials, STROBE for observational studies. RigorCheck applies the standards that match your field.
Cross-section reasoning
The system compares what your Abstract promises against what your Methods describe, what your Results show, and what your Discussion concludes.
Your manuscript stays private
Your manuscript text is not saved after analysis and is never used for model training.
What you get
Comprehensive feedback designed for academic manuscripts
The core experiment is strong and theoretically grounded. However, analytical transparency gaps around moderation and inconsistent effect size reporting will likely dominate reviewer attention.
Reviewer Perception
"A well-designed study undermined by incomplete reporting of moderation analyses."
Manuscript Readiness Snapshot
These issues are fixable without new data collection—primarily reporting and transparency improvements needed.
Moderation RQ lacks specificity
Insufficient procedural detail
Selective reporting of hypotheses
Inconsistent effect size metrics
Abstract omits response time findings reported in Results
→ Update Abstract to include RT finding
Moderation RQ proposed but no measures described in Methods
→ Add Measures subsection in Methods
Abstract reports Cohen's d, Results reports partial η²
→ Standardize effect size reporting throughout
See it in action
Here's a glimpse of what our critique looks like
Major revision likely due to Methods transparency gaps
The moderation hypothesis is tested in Results without definition in Methods. This disconnect will likely prompt reviewers to question whether the analysis was planned or exploratory. Define specific individual difference measures and the analysis strategy in Methods before reporting results.
Standardize effect size reporting across sections
Built for researchers at every stage
Whether you're preparing your first submission or your fiftieth
We use cookies for analytics to improve your experience. Read our Privacy Policy for details.