01
Fast Analysis
Complete review in minutes instead of days of waiting
AI Peer Review of Scientific Articles
Upload your manuscript for source-linked scientific feedback, a literature check, and actionable revision suggestions.
Get Started — First Review FreeFirst full review free · no card required
We accept · Visa · Mastercard · Amex · Discover · UnionPay · JCB · Diners
Features
Scientific feedback with sources, verification and edits you can inspect.
02
10+ Languages
Review in the language of your manuscript
03
6 Review Categories
Logical, arithmetic, spelling, punctuation, tabular, stylistic
04
Your annotated manuscript
Get comments and suggested changes in the format you uploaded
Comprehensive AI-Powered Scientific Manuscript Analysis
PeerReviewerAI uses advanced artificial intelligence to deliver in-depth peer reviews of research papers, theses, dissertations, and academic manuscripts. Our automated peer review system detects six categories of errors, evaluates scientific methodology, and provides actionable feedback — all in minutes, not weeks.
Six review categories
Logical Errors
Detects non sequiturs, unsupported claims, circular reasoning, contradictions between data and conclusions, and arguments not backed by evidence.
Arithmetic Errors
Flags numerical inconsistencies for review. Mathematical and statistical claims may need independent calculation.
Spelling Errors
Suggests corrections to clear language errors while preserving scientific notation.
Punctuation & Grammar
Analyzes comma usage, semicolons, colons, quotation marks, brackets, and language-specific grammar rules for academic writing.
Table & Figure Errors
Examines available table content and PDF figures; embedded DOCX objects may need manual inspection.
Stylistic Issues
Evaluates scientific register consistency, passive voice usage, terminology uniformity, tautologies, redundancies, and overall academic tone.
In-Depth Scientific Assessment
A structured assessment of the manuscript, its evidence, and useful next revisions.
I
Novelty Assessment
Compares the contribution with selected primary sources and distinguishes prior work from later developments.
II
Relevance Assessment
Analyzes the timeliness of your research topic, its practical and theoretical significance to the scientific community.
III
Structure Assessment
Checks adherence to standard academic structure: introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
IV
Methodology Assessment
Reviews method adequacy, correctness of experimental design, sample sufficiency, reproducibility, and study limitations.
V
Comprehensive Summary
Generates a detailed summary covering your article's topic, research goals, methods used, key results, and conclusions.
VI
Revision Advice
Prioritizes changes for the author, with reasons and unresolved questions.
Review in 10+ Languages
Feedback follows the manuscript language. Language alone does not determine a journal style guide.
Formats.docx.pdf.txt.doc.odt.rtf
PDF review: up to 20 MB and 100 pages. DOCX/TXT uploads: up to 200 MB, subject to the analysis budget. Oversized documents are not silently shortened.
English
EN
Deutsch
DE
Français
FR
Español
ES
Italiano
IT
Português
PT
Türkçe
TR
Nederlands
NL
Svenska
SV
Polski
PL
Four agents, one grounded review
Each agent has a specific task. You can follow their actual progress and inspect the sources and reasons behind the final advice.
01
Literature reviewer
Finds primary research and companion papers, reads available full texts and writes a dedicated comparison with prior work. Later developments are identified separately.
02
Scientific reviewer
Examines the manuscript’s arguments, methodology, numerical claims and language. Each candidate finding must point to an exact source passage.
03
Finding verifier
Checks candidates against the manuscript and retrieved sources. Unsupported findings are removed; uncertain findings are marked for further review.
04
Editorial synthesizer
Builds the final assessment from retained findings and prioritizes revisions. The export step adds comments and supported language changes to your manuscript.
Agents perform separate stages of the review. Their agreement is not independent experimental or mathematical proof.
Your manuscript, returned in its format
DOCX → tracked changes and comments. PDF → highlights and comments on the original pages. TXT → inline review notes. DOC, ODT and RTF → annotated output in the same format through office conversion; check layout after download. For Apple Pages, export to a supported format first.
How It Works
01
Upload Article
Upload DOCX, PDF, TXT, DOC, ODT or RTF.
02
Start your review
Your first review is free, with no card or checkout. Later reviews show the price before analysis.
03
Follow the agents
See source retrieval, manuscript analysis, finding verification and document preparation as they happen.
04
Read and download
Read the literature review and scientific findings, then download the report and annotated manuscript.
Sample Review: Susskind et al.
A fresh review of “Complexity Equals Action” (arXiv v3) by Brown, Roberts, Susskind, Swingle, and Zhao, generated by our updated system. Read the findings, evidence, and review limitations below. This is a retrospective analysis of a published paper, not a Physical Review Letters editorial decision.
AI peer review · retrospective sample
“Complexity Equals Action”
Adam R. Brown; Daniel A. Roberts; Leonard Susskind; Brian Swingle; Ying Zhao
AI recommendation to the author: revise
arXiv:1509.07876v3 · 10 May 2016 · 2026-09-18 (UTC)
Original PDF supplied to the review and verification passes. Targeted literature retrieval and companion-paper reading included; sources are listed below. Retained findings are shown with their evidence.
“Supported” identifies findings retained after the verification pass. The assessment is revision advice for the author.
Download the complete review and run metadata (JSON)Your review at a glance
Start with the assessment, then explore the evidence and next steps.
6
findings
0
need verification
6
sources
Overall assessment
The manuscript contains an original and highly relevant conjecture supported by a substantial companion analysis. The requested revisions do not require expanding the letter into a full technical paper. They principally require sharpening the novelty claim, specifying the conventional status of the complexity normalization, limiting Lloyd-bound and dimensional statements to the regimes actually examined, and presenting charged hair as a proposed rather than demonstrated resolution.
Read the full analysis (1 more passages)
With these scope and wording corrections, the letter would give a more accurate and compelling account of the evidence for CA duality.
What the paper does
This short letter proposes the complexity–action (CA) conjecture, C=A_WDW/(πℏ), identifying holographic state complexity with the on-shell action of the corresponding Wheeler–DeWitt patch. It presents late-time tests for neutral, rotating, and charged AdS black holes, together with perturbative tests involving static shells and shock waves. Its strongest result is the universal late-time neutral-black-hole rate dA/d(t_L+t_R)=2M, independent of horizon size and spacetime dimension.
Read the full analysis (1 more passages)
The cited companion paper supplies the detailed calculations intentionally omitted from the letter, including the neutral, charged, rotating, shell, shock-wave, and tensor-network analyses [E1]. The central claims are important and suitable for a short conjecture letter, but several statements should be narrowed so that conventionally normalized, late-time evidence is not presented as an unrestricted theorem.
Novelty
The historical novelty is substantial but should be stated precisely. The general association between black-hole interior growth and complexity, the maximal-volume prescription, and the shock-wave/switchback benchmarks predate this manuscript [E2]. The new contribution is the replacement of maximal ERB volume by the action of the full WDW patch, eliminating the configuration-dependent auxiliary length scale and producing a universal late-time coefficient for neutral black holes [E1][E2].
Read the full analysis (1 more passages)
The claim that CA “subsumes” CV is stronger than demonstrated: the two are distinct bulk prescriptions that share scaling behavior and pass many of the same tests, rather than one being derived from the other. Later work on null-boundary actions, formation complexity, divergences, and complete time dependence provides retrospective qualification rather than contemporaneous prior art [E3][E4][E5][E6].
Methodology
The manuscript appropriately presents a conjecture supported by nontrivial semiclassical checks rather than claiming a derivation from boundary CFT complexity. The detailed action calculations delegated to [9] are present in the companion paper: they derive the arbitrary-dimensional neutral result, the four-dimensional charged result, the rotating BTZ result, static-shell time dilation, and single, multiple, finite-energy, and localized shock-wave behavior [E1].
Read the full analysis (3 more passages)
Thus, their omission from this short letter is not a methodological gap in the research program. The principal unresolved issue is the boundary definition of complexity: the numerical equality depends on the gate set, approximation tolerance, reference state, and continuum regulator, while the factor of π is a normalization convention [E1]. Accordingly, the results presently support a consistently normalized relative growth prescription, not a uniquely defined microscopic equality.
The neutral universality is established only at late times; the companion paper reports zero early-time action growth in the two-sided neutral case [E1], and later full-time analysis finds additional transient behavior [E6]. The rotating and charged calculations are dimension-specific—BTZ in 2+1 dimensions and charged black holes in 3+1 dimensions—so their extension to arbitrary dimension remains conjectural.
Finally, the large charged-black-hole discrepancy is not resolved quantitatively: hair is a plausible proposed explanation, but the companion paper’s superconducting analysis is qualitative rather than a complete hairy-WDW calculation [E1].
Relevance
The manuscript addresses a foundational problem in holography: how continuing black-hole interior growth may be encoded after ordinary boundary observables have equilibrated. The proposed relation connects quantum information, semiclassical gravity, tensor networks, and black-hole dynamics. The universal neutral result and the simpler treatment of shock-wave configurations make the proposal especially relevant.
Read the full analysis (1 more passages)
The “fastest computers” interpretation is potentially influential, provided it is consistently described as a conjectural, late-time conclusion for the semiclassical examples considered rather than as an all-time statement about all black holes.
Structure
The presentation is concise and generally effective for a short letter. Figures 1 and 2 clearly depict the relevant WDW patches for neutral/collapsing and charged geometries, respectively, and the progression from the conjecture to neutral, rotating, charged, shock-wave, and shell tests is coherent. The division of technical labor with the companion paper is legitimate, because that paper explicitly supplies the detailed derivations [E1].
Read the full analysis (1 more passages)
A brief roadmap to the companion paper would nevertheless make this division clearer. The prose requires two small corrections: delete the extra “be” in “good reasons to be believe,” and replace the awkward shock-wave sentence with a direct formulation such as “Both the complexity-volume duality of [3,7] and the complexity-action duality proposed here reproduce the matching of these two growths.”
Frequently Asked Questions
How does AI peer review work?
A literature reviewer gathers and compares sources, a scientific reviewer drafts anchored findings, a verifier checks them, and an editorial agent synthesizes the result. Their stages and findings appear in a live activity log.
What types of academic papers can be reviewed?
Our service handles research papers, journal articles, conference papers, theses, dissertations, literature reviews, case studies, and technical reports across all scientific disciplines including STEM, social sciences, humanities, medicine, and engineering.
How accurate is the AI analysis?
Findings are checked against the manuscript and retrieved sources, with uncertain issues marked explicitly. This process can still miss problems or make incorrect judgments; the sample shows its actual output and evidence.
Does language determine the journal standard?
No. Review language is detected automatically, but a journal style guide cannot be inferred from it. The current review focuses on scientific arguments, evidence, structure and language.
How long does a review take?
Time depends on manuscript length, literature retrieval and the verification passes. Progress is shown during analysis.
Can I get the review as a downloadable document?
Yes. Download the full report as DOCX and your annotated manuscript in its uploaded format: DOCX, PDF, TXT, DOC, ODT or RTF. PDF uses comments on the original pages; DOCX uses tracked changes. Legacy office conversion can change layout. Apple Pages files must first be exported.
Ready to Improve Your Research Paper?
Upload your manuscript now and receive a detailed AI peer review with error detection, methodology assessment, and expert recommendations in minutes.
Start Your Free Review